Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: mvpp2: use the same buffer pool for all ports

Hi Thomas,

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:01:59PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

On Fri,  2 Mar 2018 16:40:40 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:

quoted

+static struct {
+	int pkt_size;
+	int buf_num;
+} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM];

Any reason for not doing:

} mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM] = {
	[MVPP2_BM_SHORT] = {
		.pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE,
		.buf_num = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM
	},
	[MVPP2_BM_LONG] = {
		.pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE,
		.buf_num = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM,
	},
};

And get rid of:

quoted

+static void mvpp2_setup_bm_pool(void)
+{
+	/* Short pool */
+	mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].buf_num  = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_BUF_NUM;
+	mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_SHORT].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE;
+
+	/* Long pool */
+	mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].buf_num  = MVPP2_BM_LONG_BUF_NUM;
+	mvpp2_pools[MVPP2_BM_LONG].pkt_size = MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE;
+}

 ?

I wanted to do this, but it's no possible as MVPP2_BM_SHORT_PKT_SIZE and
MVPP2_BM_LONG_PKT_SIZE use a core definition which expands at some point
to __max(...) which has to be called from within a function.

That's why I kept mvpp2_setup_bm_pool().

Thanks!
Antoine

-- 
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com