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

[MD Danish Anwar]

On 02/05/24 5:32 pm, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 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. 


Sure Paolo, I will split the "struct definition move" to a separate
patch and post both the patches as a small series in v6.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Danish