From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 21:48:56 +0200
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 04:35:45PM -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> >> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:41:18 +0200 >> >> > If rate is the same as set it's correct case. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> >> > --- >> > Based on net-next/master >> > >> > drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >> > index e4d6edf..dbe9167 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c >> > @@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ int cpdma_chan_set_rate(struct cpdma_chan *ch, u32 >> > rate) >> > return -EINVAL; >> > >> > if (ch->rate == rate) >> > - return rate; >> > + return 0; >> >> Looking at the one and only caller of this function, >> cpsw_ndo_set_tx_maxrate, it >> makes sure this can never, ever, happen. > In current circumstances yes, it will never happen. > But I caught it while adding related code and better return 0 if upper caller > doesn't have such check. Suppose that cpdma module is responsible for itself > and if it's critical I can send this patch along with whole related series. You have to decide one way or the other, who is responsible. I think checking higher up is better because it's cheaper at that point to look at the per-netdev queue rate setting before moving down deeper into the driver specific data-structures.
