Re: [PATCH net] bnxt_en: Gate TPH enablement behind BNXT_SUPPORTS_QUEUE_API check
Thomas Walsh <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAD+aA83e_HP=Z0pXpcxW5j+TUXdgP3Dx8_LGxrMjdVwtERRCtg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 1:40 PM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:18:49 +0530 Pavan Chebbi wrote: > > > /* Enable TPH support as part of IRQ request */ > > > - rc = pcie_enable_tph(bp->pdev, PCI_TPH_ST_IV_MODE); > > > - if (!rc) > > > - bp->tph_mode = PCI_TPH_ST_IV_MODE; > > > + if (BNXT_SUPPORTS_QUEUE_API(bp)) { > > > > IMO we should not gate pcie_enable_tph() on BNXT_SUPPORTS_QUEUE_API, > > since TPH's initial steering-tag placement is valid on its own and > > re-steering may never be needed in some cases? > > So in these cases it simply disables the feature. > > Since irqs are requested at open wouldn't this mean that users who > program affinity (all serious users?) will have the wrong TPH? Which > is presumably worse than no TPH at all? > > IMHO the simplicity and consistency is good. AFAIU queue API is > supported on fairly old bnxt NICs so the combination of CPU needing > TPH and NIC design being 15(?) years old is rather unlikely in the > first place. The real scenario where users may run into no queue API > support is FW being old, in which case FW should be updated? > Thank you both for taking a look, I appreciate it. In this particular situation, the customer had very recently upgraded their firmware. "RX queue restart failed: err=-95" messages were still observed. I should note that this was prior to the addition of bnxt_tph_update().