Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 2/7] net: ethernet: am65-cpsw: cleanup TAPRIO handling

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 04:01:42PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> -static int am65_cpsw_configure_taprio(struct net_device *ndev,
> -				      struct am65_cpsw_est *est_new)
> +static void am65_cpsw_cp_taprio(struct tc_taprio_qopt_offload *from,
> +				struct tc_taprio_qopt_offload *to)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	*to = *from;
> +	for (i = 0; i < from->num_entries; i++)
> +		to->entries[i] = from->entries[i];
> +}

I think I mentioned this before: have you looked at taprio_offload_get()
and taprio_offload_put()?

> +
> +static int am65_cpsw_taprio_replace(struct net_device *ndev,
> +				    struct tc_taprio_qopt_offload *taprio)
>  {
>  	struct am65_cpsw_common *common = am65_ndev_to_common(ndev);
> +	struct netlink_ext_ack *extack = taprio->mqprio.extack;
> +	struct am65_cpsw_port *port = am65_ndev_to_port(ndev);
>  	struct am65_cpts *cpts = common->cpts;
>  	int ret = 0, tact = TACT_PROG;
> +	struct am65_cpsw_est *est_new;
>  
> -	am65_cpsw_est_update_state(ndev);
> +	if (!netif_running(ndev)) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "interface is down, link speed unknown\n");

The extack message doesn't need a \n.

> +		return -ENETDOWN;
> +	}
>  
> -	if (est_new->taprio.cmd == TAPRIO_CMD_DESTROY) {
> -		am65_cpsw_stop_est(ndev);
> -		return ret;
> +	if (common->pf_p0_rx_ptype_rrobin) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
> +				   "p0-rx-ptype-rrobin flag conflicts with taprio qdisc\n");

Also here.

> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (port->qos.link_speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN)
> +		return -ENOLINK;
> +
> +	if (taprio->cycle_time_extension) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
> +				   "cycle time extension not supported");

Here it's ok.

> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  	}