Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: ethernet: am65-cpsw: Error out if Enable TX/RX channel fails

[Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>]

On 14/11/2023 14:07, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 01:07:08PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> k3_udma_glue_enable_rx/tx_chn returns error code on failure.
>> Bail out on error while enabling TX/RX channel.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c
>> index 7c440899c93c..340f25bf33b1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c
>> @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ static void am65_cpsw_init_port_emac_ale(struct am65_cpsw_port *port);
>>  static int am65_cpsw_nuss_common_open(struct am65_cpsw_common *common)
>>  {
>>  	struct am65_cpsw_host *host_p = am65_common_get_host(common);
>> -	int port_idx, i, ret;
>> +	int port_idx, i, ret, tx;
>>  	struct sk_buff *skb;
>>  	u32 val, port_mask;
>>  
>> @@ -453,13 +453,22 @@ static int am65_cpsw_nuss_common_open(struct am65_cpsw_common *common)
>>  		}
>>  		kmemleak_not_leak(skb);
>>  	}
>> -	k3_udma_glue_enable_rx_chn(common->rx_chns.rx_chn);
>>  
>> -	for (i = 0; i < common->tx_ch_num; i++) {
>> -		ret = k3_udma_glue_enable_tx_chn(common->tx_chns[i].tx_chn);
>> -		if (ret)
>> -			return ret;
> 
> Can you comment on the kmemleak_not_leak(skb) call above, and its
> relationship to the pre-existing error handling path in am65_cpsw_nuss_common_open()?

I am not aware why it was added. It sure looks odd and I'll get rid of it
and add the necessary error handling.

> I see that the dev_kfree_skb_any() call is being made from am65_cpsw_nuss_rx_cleanup(),
> which is only called from am65_cpsw_nuss_common_stop().
> 
> So if there are errors during am65_cpsw_nuss_common_open() and
> descriptors have already been added to the RX DMA channel, they will not
> be removed either from hardware or from software. How does that work?

I believe this is a gap and I will address it in the next revision. Thanks!

-- 
cheers,
-roger