On 11/09/2010 01:26 PM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
quoted text >>>> Can you please explain me your locking sheme? If I understand the
>>>> documenation correctly the two message interfaces can be used mutual.
>>>> And you use one for rx the other one for tx.
>>>
>>> I show our locking scheme.
>>> When CPU accesses MessageRAM via IF1, CPU protect until read-modify-write
>>> so that IF2 access not occurred, vice versa.
>>
>> Why is that needed?
>
> For MessageRAM data consistency.
As far as I understand the datasheet the access to IF1 and IF2 is
completely independent. Why do you lock here?
[...]
quoted text >>>> Please use just "debug" level not warning here. Consider to use
>>>> netdev_dbg() instead. IMHO the __func__ can be dropped and the
>>>> "official" name for the error is "Error Warning".
>>>
>>> I want to know the reason.
>>> Why is it not dev_warn but netdev_dbg ?
>>
>> If you use warning level it would end up on the console or and in the
>> syslog. It's quite complicated (for programs) to get information from
>> there. This is why we send CAN error frames. They hold the same
>> information but int a binary form, thus it's easier to process.
>
> I understand the reason.
> BTW, Why do you say not dev_dbg but netdev_dbg ?
Sorry - netdev_dbg() is easier to use, its first argument is the
netdevice, while dev_dbg needs a device and that's deeply hidden in the
netdevice.
[...]
quoted text >>>>> +static netdev_tx_t pch_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *ndev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>>> + struct pch_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
>>>>> + struct can_frame *cf = (struct can_frame *)skb->data;
>>>>> + int tx_buffer_avail = 0;
>>>>
>>>> What I'm totally missing is the TX flow controll. Your driver has to
>>>> ensure that the package leave the controller in the order that come
>>>> into the xmit function. Further you have to stop your xmit queue if
>>>> you're out of tx objects and reenable if you have a object free.
>>>>
>>>> Use netif_stop_queue() and netif_wake_queue() for this.
>>>
>>> In this code, I think "out of tx objects" cannot be occurred.
>>
>> It's not a matter of code it's the hardware. You cannot put more than a
>> certain number of CAN frames into the hardware. If you have a CAN bus at
>> a certain speed, you can only send a certain number of CAN frames in a
>> second. So you cannot push more than this amount of frames/s into the
>> hardware.
>>
>>> Nevertheless, are netif_stop_queue() and netif_wake_queue() is necessary ?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I can' understand your issue.
> Please can you hear my opinion?
>
> Please see the head of pch_xmit.
>
>>> + if (priv->tx_obj == (PCH_OBJ_NUM + 1)) { /* Point tail Obj + 1 */
>>> + while (ioread32(&priv->regs->treq2) & 0xfc00)
>>> + udelay(1);
>
> When points tail of Tx message object,
> this driver waits until completion of all tx messaeg objects.
Looping busy it not an option here.
quoted text > Thus, application/driver ought not to be able to put Tx object exceed the number of tx message object.
> Thus I think these code(netif_stop_queue/netif_wake_queue) are completely redundant.
Nope - please remove the waiting completely and convert your flow
control to netif_stop_queue/netif_wake_queue.
cheers, Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 |
http://www.pengutronix.de |
