Re: [PATCH net v3 1/3] net: stmmac: Limit the number of MTL queues to hardware capability

From: Kunihiko Hayashi
Date: Sun Jan 26 2025 - 20:18:58 EST


On 2025/01/24 20:43, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 07:13:57PM +0900, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
The number of MTL queues to use is specified by the parameter
"snps,{tx,rx}-queues-to-use" from stmmac_platform layer.

However, the maximum numbers of queues are constrained by upper limits
determined by the capability of each hardware feature. It's appropriate
to limit the values not to exceed the upper limit values and display
a warning message.

This only works if the hardware capability has the upper limit values.

Fixes: d976a525c371 ("net: stmmac: multiple queues dt configuration")
Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
index 7bf275f127c9..be1e6fa6d557 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
@@ -7232,6 +7232,21 @@ static int stmmac_hw_init(struct stmmac_priv
*priv)
if (priv->dma_cap.tsoen)
dev_info(priv->device, "TSO supported\n");
+ if (priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues &&
+ priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues < priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use)
{

While this looks "nicer", which of these two do you think reads better
and is easier to understand:

"If priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues is set, and
priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues is less than
priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use then print a message about
priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use exceeding priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues"

"If priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues is set, and
priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use is greater than
priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues, then print a message about
priv->plat->rx_queues_to_use exceeding priv->dma_cap.number_rx_queues"

With the former one has to mentally flip the test around in the if
statement to check that it does indeed match the warning that is
printed.

This patch focuses only on the conditional lines, however, certainly
it's not good to have the meaning of the message and the condition
reversed.

I'll fix it next.

Thank you,

---
Best Regards
Kunihiko Hayashi