On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 17:28 -0700, prodyut hazarika wrote: > > BTW. If you guys are ever going to do another change to MAL, please > > please plase, add the -one- major missing feature that's causing all > the > > pain and complication in the current design: Add a per-channel > interrupt > > masking option. > > > > The lack of ability to mask the interrupt per MAL channel is what > forces > > us to create that fake netdev structure in order to share the napi > > device instance between all the EMACs in the system. This is very > > inefficient too. We would be able to make things run a lot smoother > if > > we could just have a napi instance per EMAC, but for that, we need > > per-channel interrupt masking. > > > > I will add a patch for the above as soon as I am done incorporating > your comments on the MAL coalescing support. > Well... the above is a HW limitation :-) IE. I was suggesting you fix the HW, but in the case where you already did and the current MAL in your SoC can indeed mask the interrupt per-channel, then that's great and we should definitely look into having the driver go back to a more standard NAPI model on MALs that have that capability.
Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
