lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH net-next 10/11] net: stmmac: Introduce selftests support
Date
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, May 09, 2019 at 03:23:30

> > +static int stmmac_test_eee(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + struct stmmac_extra_stats *initial, *final;
> > + int timeout = 100;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = stmmac_test_loopback(priv);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto out_free_final;
> > +
> > + /* We have no traffic in the line so, sooner or later it will go LPI */
> > + while (--timeout) {
> > + memcpy(final, &priv->xstats, sizeof(*final));
> > +
> > + if (final->irq_tx_path_in_lpi_mode_n >
> > + initial->irq_tx_path_in_lpi_mode_n)
> > + break;
> > + msleep(100);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!timeout) {
> > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > + goto out_free_final;
> > + }
>
> Retries would be a better name than timeout.

Ok.

>
> Also, 100 * 100 ms seems like a long time.

Ah, yeah. I will adjust to 0.5 or maybe 1 sec max.

>
> > +static int stmmac_filter_check(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + if (!(priv->dev->flags & IFF_PROMISC))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + netdev_warn(priv->dev, "Test can't be run in promiscuous mode!\n");
> > + return 1;
>
> Maybe return EOPNOTSUPP here,

Ok.

>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int stmmac_test_hfilt(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + unsigned char gd_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0x01, 0x0c, 0xcd, 0x04, 0x00, 0x00};
> > + unsigned char bd_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0x06, 0x07, 0x08, 0x09, 0x0a, 0x0b};
>
> What does gd and bd mean?

Good and Bad :D

>
> > + struct stmmac_packet_attrs attr = { };
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (stmmac_filter_check(priv))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> and just return the error code from the call.
>
> > +
> > + ret = dev_mc_add(priv->dev, gd_addr);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + attr.dst = gd_addr;
> > +
> > + /* Shall receive packet */
> > + ret = __stmmac_test_loopback(priv, &attr);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto cleanup;
> > +
> > + attr.dst = bd_addr;
> > +
> > + /* Shall NOT receive packet */
> > + ret = __stmmac_test_loopback(priv, &attr);
> > + ret = !ret;
>
> What is this test testing? gd is a multicast, where as bd is not. I
> expect the hardware treats multicast different to unicast. So it would
> make more sense to test two different multicast addresses, one which
> has been added via dev_mc_addr, and one that has not?

Hmm, yeah makes sense. I will adjust.

>
> > +
> > +cleanup:
> > + dev_mc_del(priv->dev, gd_addr);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int stmmac_test_pfilt(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + unsigned char gd_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0x05, 0x06};
> > + unsigned char bd_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0x06, 0x07, 0x08, 0x09, 0x0a, 0x0b};
> > + struct stmmac_packet_attrs attr = { };
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (stmmac_filter_check(priv))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + ret = dev_uc_add(priv->dev, gd_addr);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + attr.dst = gd_addr;
> > +
> > + /* Shall receive packet */
> > + ret = __stmmac_test_loopback(priv, &attr);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto cleanup;
>
> gb is a multicast address. Does dev_uc_add() return an error? If it
> does not we should not expect it to actually work, since a multicast
> address should not match a unicast address?

It doesn't return an error and it does calls the set_filter callback in
netdev. I will adjust to use unicast address.

> You also seem to be missing a test for adding a unicast address via
> dev_uc_add() and receiving packets for that address, but not receiving
> multicast packets.

Hmm, what if interface was already configured to receive Multicast before
running the tests ?

>
> > +static const struct stmmac_test {
> > + char name[ETH_GSTRING_LEN];
> > + int lb;
> > + int (*fn)(struct stmmac_priv *priv);
> > +} stmmac_selftests[] = {
> > + {
> > + .name = "MAC Loopback ",
> > + .lb = STMMAC_LOOPBACK_MAC,
> > + .fn = stmmac_test_loopback,
>
> stmmac_test_mac_loopback might be a better name.

Ok.

Thanks for the review!

Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-09 10:26    [W:0.100 / U:2.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site