On Wednesday 29 July 2015 04:00 AM, Francois Romieu wrote:
> 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.
>
For each interrupt only one napi will be scheduled, when the first
interface is down then only second interface napi is scheduled in both
tx and rx irqs.
Regards
Mugunthan V N
--
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
