Mugunthan V N <mugunthan...@ti.com> : > On Tuesday 28 July 2015 02:52 AM, Francois Romieu wrote: > > Mugunthan V N <mugunthan...@ti.com> : [...] > >> @@ -752,13 +753,22 @@ static irqreturn_t cpsw_tx_interrupt(int irq, void > >> *dev_id) > >> struct cpsw_priv *priv = dev_id; > >> > >> cpdma_ctlr_eoi(priv->dma, CPDMA_EOI_TX); > >> - cpdma_chan_process(priv->txch, 128); > >> + writel(0, &priv->wr_regs->tx_en); > >> + > >> + if (netif_running(priv->ndev)) { > >> + napi_schedule(&priv->napi_tx); > >> + return IRQ_HANDLED; > >> + } > > > > > > cpsw_ndo_stop calls napi_disable: you can remove netif_running. > > > > This netif_running check is to find which interface is up as the > interrupt is shared by both the interfaces. When first interface is down > and second interface is active then napi_schedule for first interface > will fail and second interface napi needs to be scheduled. > > So I don't think netif_running needs to be removed.
Each interface has its own napi tx (resp. rx) context: I would had expected two unconditional napi_schedule per tx (resp. rx) shared irq, not one. I'll read it again after some sleep. -- Ueimor -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html