From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com (lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED17E9479; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:29:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.234 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739881753; cv=none; b=Wums2w867m61NE+1zp9jhiX7fK+S8yJ7Vi+BBbS57vCG9p3XX3I40JTTWq+xXIGUjwTbcVT85C4Cjya18dlADKYtAKjpyM3kB+4c/B8hMjPf5Qve8bT9+kpSZsRBdAr0njt4yKyStg3y8zo9Ruo2cIhWCNlYn0aMqUbNCLELSIQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739881753; c=relaxed/simple; bh=efmpp9iVcKx6fv05L3Xyb5BwKMnnItOAh1S/HkWfiVE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=WrohTGnTW20xE2/+6/KtPGL7jlRlBFEmJR8XnJWLuRlJc0lLgZ1Gxyq+MFVXPM7lEi3xIINXLD+avjHDNhim9JGhbcWUPQULsZyUP2MMKPxoMel8YrHWVf6rvY2o1h7H6LaslY49uNfNypfmpuTmRe7wJZrA0v2W1zKbzoj0seU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=EWO1en5z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.234 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="EWO1en5z" Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 51ICSafl1670795 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:28:36 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1739881716; bh=SGEjmL6AiEaHGdfRsy6AnNrW7FJmxRmggnhRMW4Zow0=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=EWO1en5zq8n48cQ7K/SNm/cWwkLYpAsYEFSKDuKUnCZqj/sR5zBrFl5R/+ERQ5hYN SY8+qykzvzgQq0iUOjy7WUSJ3azkEvoD+cd4lJgbUW1seHxtZrtAgUc9C7VRoVGJQR NYP0saM4W5NLD+Y2FkRiRjHC5HQZx7wk7GF5d+Jw= Received: from DLEE115.ent.ti.com (dlee115.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.26]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 51ICSacM070600 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:28:36 -0600 Received: from DLEE107.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.37) by DLEE115.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:28:35 -0600 Received: from lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.249) by DLEE107.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:28:35 -0600 Received: from [172.24.20.199] (lt9560gk3.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.20.199]) by lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 51ICSSYE102530; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:28:28 -0600 Message-ID: <94425bfd-7f2b-4fc4-86f8-a56e56173d22@ti.com> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:58:27 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Use page_pool API for RX buffer allocation To: Diogo Ivo , Roger Quadros , , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Vignesh Raghavendra References: <20250210103352.541052-1-m-malladi@ti.com> <20250210103352.541052-2-m-malladi@ti.com> <152b032e-fcd9-4d49-8154-92a475c0670c@kernel.org> <615a2e1f-5ee5-4d80-a499-8ff06596a2fc@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: "Malladi, Meghana" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea Hi Diogo, On 2/18/2025 5:54 PM, Diogo Ivo wrote: > Hi Meghana, On 2/18/25 10: 10 AM, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > On 2/12/2025 > 7: 26 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >> Can we get rid of SKB entirely from > the management channel code? >> The packet received on this channel is > never passed to > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source > of this email and know the content is safe. > Report Suspicious > uvdgfB3F_Ow7QIXEnBKj3ybYT8I9yL0CM5RLkel44YW99zMeqk_TnCBkOwR0q45N5dLjtBz49EalJyUJ1-U1lPk6DIBve_3-$> > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > Hi Meghana, > > On 2/18/25 10:10 AM, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >> On 2/12/2025 7:26 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >>> Can we get rid of SKB entirely from the management channel code? >>> The packet received on this channel is never passed to user space so >>> I don't see why SKB is required. >>> >> >> Yes I do agree with you on the fact the SKB here is not passed to the >> network stack, hence this is redundant. But honestly I am not sure how >> that can be done, because the callers of this function access skb->data >> from the skb which is returned and the same can't be done with page (how >> to pass the same data using page?) >> Also as you are aware we are not currently supporting SR1 devices >> anymore, hence I don't have any SR1 devices handy to test these changes >> and ensure nothing is broken if I remove SKB entirely. > > I have some SR1 devices available and would be happy to test these > proposed changes in case they are feasible. > That's awesome. Once the changes have been aligned with Roger, I will share the changes with you for testing before posting v3. Thanks for your support. > Best regards, > Diogo >