Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-174939-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 22:39:22 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
	pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, saeedm@nvidia.com,
	anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Horatiu.Vultur@microchip.com,
	ruanjinjie@huawei.com, Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com,
	vladimir.oltean@nxp.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
	Thorsten.Kummermehr@microchip.com, Pier.Beruto@onsemi.com,
	Selvamani.Rajagopal@onsemi.com, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com,
	benjamin.bigler@bernformulastudent.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/12] Add support for OPEN Alliance
 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial Interface
Message-ID: <44cd0dc2-4b37-4e2f-be47-85f4c0e9f69c@lunn.ch>
References: <20240418125648.372526-1-Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com>
 <5f73edc0-1a25-4d03-be21-5b1aa9e933b2@lunn.ch>
 <32160a96-c031-4e5a-bf32-fd5d4dee727e@lunn.ch>
 <2d9f523b-99b7-485d-a20a-80d071226ac9@microchip.com>
 <6ba7e1c8-5f89-4a0e-931f-3c117ccc7558@lunn.ch>
 <8b9f8c10-e6bf-47df-ad83-eaf2590d8625@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8b9f8c10-e6bf-47df-ad83-eaf2590d8625@microchip.com>

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:04:52PM +0000, Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 08/05/24 10:34 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> >> Yes. I tried this test. It works as expected.
> > 
> >>     Each LAN8651 received approximately 3Mbps with lot of "Receive buffer
> >> overflow error". I think it is expected as the single SPI master has to
> >> serve both LAN8651 at the same time and both LAN8651 will be receiving
> >> 10Mbps on each.
> > 
> > Thanks for testing this.
> > 
> > This also shows the "Receive buffer overflow error" needs to go away.
> > Either we don't care at all, and should not enable the interrupt, or
> > we do care and should increment a counter.
> Thanks for your comments. I think, I would go for your 2nd proposal 
> because having "Receive buffer overflow error" enabled will indicate the 
> cause of the poor performance.
> 
> Already we have,
> tc6->netdev->stats.rx_dropped++;
> to increment the rx dropped counter in case of receive buffer overflow.
> 
> May be we can remove the print,
> net_err_ratelimited("%s: Receive buffer overflow error\n", 
> tc6->netdev->name);
> as it might lead to additional poor performance by adding some delay.
> 
> Could you please provide your opinion on this?

This is your code. Ideally you should decide. I will only add review
comments if i think it is wrong. Any can decide between any correct
option.

	Andrew