From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363B2C04A6B for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0403620675 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="vu0NFRT9" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726563AbfEICXh (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2019 22:23:37 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:58977 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725842AbfEICXg (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2019 22:23:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=BLdUxRrkwpbfMypNuHs1fW3qzt5NUxqZanuMvnX1EIM=; b=vu0NFRT9a7FhbMaiTIdR8jrxM+ UljmNAEVWm4ywYA69TC01Y2ntK1Ozzi49VjWGqq8Axff70XUsDWUtgZGBAhX/eNj9rU9dUsxz0tUo wkUnRlsy/iv+FRmoEPkwZ5nlnd/nqV3tP+b0BKUMa+s8KsgoPN0SCPFj2tEkY+HZ6qyM=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hOYiY-0006iY-9w; Thu, 09 May 2019 04:23:30 +0200 Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 04:23:30 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Jose Abreu Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joao Pinto , "David S . Miller" , Giuseppe Cavallaro , Alexandre Torgue Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/11] net: stmmac: Introduce selftests support Message-ID: <20190509022330.GA23758@lunn.ch> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > +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. Also, 100 * 100 ms seems like a long time. > +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, > +} > + > +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? > + 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? > + > +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? 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. > +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. > + }, { > + .name = "PHY Loopback ", > + .lb = STMMAC_LOOPBACK_PHY, > + .fn = stmmac_test_phy_loopback, > + }, { Andrew