[PATCH net-next v5] net: ti: icssg_prueth: add TAPRIO offload support

[Paolo Abeni]

On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 13:59 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 16:00 +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
> > +static int emac_taprio_replace(struct net_device *ndev,
> > +			       struct tc_taprio_qopt_offload *taprio)
> > +{
> > +	struct prueth_emac *emac = netdev_priv(ndev);
> > +	struct tc_taprio_qopt_offload *est_new;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	if (taprio->cycle_time_extension) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(taprio->extack, "Cycle time extension not supported");
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (taprio->cycle_time < TAS_MIN_CYCLE_TIME) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(taprio->extack, "cycle_time %llu is less than min supported cycle_time %d",
> > +				       taprio->cycle_time, TAS_MIN_CYCLE_TIME);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (taprio->num_entries > TAS_MAX_CMD_LISTS) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(taprio->extack, "num_entries %lu is more than max supported entries %d",
> > +				       taprio->num_entries, TAS_MAX_CMD_LISTS);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (emac->qos.tas.taprio_admin)
> > +		devm_kfree(&ndev->dev, emac->qos.tas.taprio_admin);
> 
> it looks like 'qos.tas.taprio_admin' is initialized from
> taprio_offload_get(), so it should be free with taprio_offload_free(),
> right?
> 
> > +
> > +	est_new = devm_kzalloc(&ndev->dev,
> > +			       struct_size(est_new, entries, taprio->num_entries),
> > +			       GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!est_new)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> Why are you allocating 'est_new'? it looks like it's not used
> anywhere?!? 
> 
> > +
> > +	emac->qos.tas.taprio_admin = taprio_offload_get(taprio);
> > +	ret = tas_update_oper_list(emac);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> 
> Should the above clear 'taprio_admin' on error, as well? 

Side note: the patch itself is rather big, I guess it would be better
split it. You can make a small series putting the the struct definition
move in a separate patch. 

Thanks,

Paolo