[PATCH v3] wwan: core: Support slicing in port TX flow of WWAN subsystem

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 06:08:36PM +0800, haozhe.chang at mediatek.com wrote:
> From: haozhe chang <haozhe.chang at mediatek.com>
> 
> wwan_port_fops_write inputs the SKB parameter to the TX callback of
> the WWAN device driver. However, the WWAN device (e.g., t7xx) may
> have an MTU less than the size of SKB, causing the TX buffer to be
> sliced and copied once more in the WWAN device driver.
> 
> This patch implements the slicing in the WWAN subsystem and gives
> the WWAN devices driver the option to slice(by frag_len) or not. By
> doing so, the additional memory copy is reduced.
> 
> Meanwhile, this patch gives WWAN devices driver the option to reserve
> headroom in fragments for the device-specific metadata.
> 
> Signed-off-by: haozhe chang <haozhe.chang at mediatek.com>
> 
> ---
> Changes in v2
>   -send fragments to device driver by skb frag_list.
> 
> Changes in v3
>   -move frag_len and headroom_len setting to wwan_create_port.
> ---
>  drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_port.c  |  3 +-
>  drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_ctrl.c       |  2 +-
>  drivers/net/wwan/rpmsg_wwan_ctrl.c     |  2 +-
>  drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_port_wwan.c | 34 +++++++--------
>  drivers/net/wwan/wwan_core.c           | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++------
>  drivers/net/wwan/wwan_hwsim.c          |  2 +-
>  drivers/usb/class/cdc-wdm.c            |  2 +-
>  include/linux/wwan.h                   |  6 ++-
>  8 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_port.c b/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_port.c
> index b6d81c627277..dc43b8f0d1af 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_port.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wwan/iosm/iosm_ipc_port.c
> @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ struct iosm_cdev *ipc_port_init(struct iosm_imem *ipc_imem,
>  	ipc_port->ipc_imem = ipc_imem;
>  
>  	ipc_port->iosm_port = wwan_create_port(ipc_port->dev, port_type,
> -					       &ipc_wwan_ctrl_ops, ipc_port);
> +					       &ipc_wwan_ctrl_ops, 0, 0,
> +					       ipc_port);

How is 0, 0 a valid option here?

and if it is a valid option, shouldn't you just have 2 different
functions, one that needs these values and one that does not?  That
would make it more descriptive as to what those options are, and ensure
that you get them right.

> @@ -112,7 +117,6 @@ void wwan_port_rx(struct wwan_port *port, struct sk_buff *skb);
>   */
>  void wwan_port_txoff(struct wwan_port *port);
>  
> -
>  /**

Unneeded change.

thanks,

greg k-h