| Message ID | 20230412124737.2243527-9-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | a291399e635415295860765954e247e83445e291 |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Ocelot/Felix driver cleanup | expand |
On 4/12/2023 5:47 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Since it is hopefully now clear that, since "last" and "layout[i].reg" > are enum types and not addresses, the existing WARN_ON() is ineffective > in checking that the _addresses_ are sorted in the proper order. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > --- This is definitely more clear after reviewing the other code dealing with these encoded register addresses. Nice fix. Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Thanks, Jake > drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c | 17 +++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c > index e82c9d9d0ad3..5c55197c7327 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c > @@ -901,6 +901,17 @@ static int ocelot_prepare_stats_regions(struct ocelot *ocelot) > if (!layout[i].reg) > continue; > > + /* enum ocelot_stat must be kept sorted in the same order > + * as the addresses behind layout[i].reg in order to have > + * efficient bulking > + */ > + if (last) { > + WARN(ocelot->map[SYS][last & REG_MASK] >= ocelot->map[SYS][layout[i].reg & REG_MASK], > + "reg 0x%x had address 0x%x but reg 0x%x has address 0x%x, bulking broken!", > + last, ocelot->map[SYS][last & REG_MASK], > + layout[i].reg, ocelot->map[SYS][layout[i].reg & REG_MASK]); > + } > + > if (region && ocelot->map[SYS][layout[i].reg & REG_MASK] == > ocelot->map[SYS][last & REG_MASK] + 4) { > region->count++; > @@ -910,12 +921,6 @@ static int ocelot_prepare_stats_regions(struct ocelot *ocelot) > if (!region) > return -ENOMEM; > > - /* enum ocelot_stat must be kept sorted in the same > - * order as layout[i].reg in order to have efficient > - * bulking > - */ > - WARN_ON(last >= layout[i].reg); > - > region->base = layout[i].reg; > region->first_stat = i; > region->count = 1;
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c index e82c9d9d0ad3..5c55197c7327 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c @@ -901,6 +901,17 @@ static int ocelot_prepare_stats_regions(struct ocelot *ocelot) if (!layout[i].reg) continue; + /* enum ocelot_stat must be kept sorted in the same order + * as the addresses behind layout[i].reg in order to have + * efficient bulking + */ + if (last) { + WARN(ocelot->map[SYS][last & REG_MASK] >= ocelot->map[SYS][layout[i].reg & REG_MASK], + "reg 0x%x had address 0x%x but reg 0x%x has address 0x%x, bulking broken!", + last, ocelot->map[SYS][last & REG_MASK], + layout[i].reg, ocelot->map[SYS][layout[i].reg & REG_MASK]); + } + if (region && ocelot->map[SYS][layout[i].reg & REG_MASK] == ocelot->map[SYS][last & REG_MASK] + 4) { region->count++; @@ -910,12 +921,6 @@ static int ocelot_prepare_stats_regions(struct ocelot *ocelot) if (!region) return -ENOMEM; - /* enum ocelot_stat must be kept sorted in the same - * order as layout[i].reg in order to have efficient - * bulking - */ - WARN_ON(last >= layout[i].reg); - region->base = layout[i].reg; region->first_stat = i; region->count = 1;
Since it is hopefully now clear that, since "last" and "layout[i].reg" are enum types and not addresses, the existing WARN_ON() is ineffective in checking that the _addresses_ are sorted in the proper order. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_stats.c | 17 +++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)