Mugunthan V N [off-list ref] :

On Tuesday 28 July 2015 02:52 AM, Francois Romieu wrote:

quoted

Mugunthan V N [off-list ref] :

[...]

quoted

quoted

@@ -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