On Wednesday 29 July 2015 04:00 AM, Francois Romieu wrote:

Mugunthan V N [off-list ref] :

quoted

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

quoted

Mugunthan V N [off-list ref] :

[...]

quoted

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.

For each interrupt only one napi will be scheduled, when the first
interface is down then only second interface napi is scheduled in both
tx and rx irqs.

Regards
Mugunthan V N