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
