[PATCH iwl-next v4 0/9] igc: Add support for Frame Preemption feature in IGC

[Kurt Kanzenbach]

On Thu Feb 13 2025, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> So, confusingly to me, it seems like one operating mode is fundamentally
> different from the other, and something will have to change if both will
> be made to behave the same. What will change? You say mqprio will behave
> like taprio, but I think if anything, mqprio is the one which does the
> right thing, in igc_tsn_tx_arb(), and taprio seems to use the default Tx
> arbitration scheme?

Correct. taprio is using the default scheme. mqprio configures it to
what ever the user provided (in igc_tsn_tx_arb()).

> I don't think I'm on the same page as you guys, because to me, it is
> just odd that the P traffic classes would be the first ones with
> mqprio, but the last ones with taprio.

I think we are on the same page here. At the end both have to behave the
same. Either by using igc_tsn_tx_arb() for taprio too or only using the
default scheme for both (and thereby keeping broken_mqprio). Whatever
Faizal implements I'll match the behavior with mqprio.

Thanks,
Kurt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 861 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20250213/b3c2d55f/attachment.sig>