@@ -6489,6 +6489,8 @@ static void bnxt_hwrm_ring_free(struct bnxt *bp, bool close_path)
}
}
+static int __bnxt_trim_rings(struct bnxt *bp, int *rx, int *tx, int max,
+ bool shared);
static int bnxt_trim_rings(struct bnxt *bp, int *rx, int *tx, int max,
bool shared);
@@ -6532,8 +6534,9 @@ static int bnxt_hwrm_get_rings(struct bnxt *bp)
if (bp->flags & BNXT_FLAG_AGG_RINGS)
rx >>= 1;
if (cp < (rx + tx)) {
- rx = cp / 2;
- tx = rx;
+ rc = __bnxt_trim_rings(bp, &rx, &tx, cp, false);
+ if (rc)
+ return rc;
if (bp->flags & BNXT_FLAG_AGG_RINGS)
rx <<= 1;
hw_resc->resv_rx_rings = rx;
@@ -13885,9 +13888,12 @@ static void _bnxt_get_max_rings(struct bnxt *bp, int *max_rx, int *max_tx,
if (bp->flags & BNXT_FLAG_AGG_RINGS)
*max_rx >>= 1;
if (bp->flags & BNXT_FLAG_CHIP_P5_PLUS) {
- if (*max_cp < (*max_rx + *max_tx)) {
- *max_rx = *max_cp / 2;
- *max_tx = *max_rx;
+ int rc;
+
+ rc = __bnxt_trim_rings(bp, max_rx, max_tx, *max_cp, false);
+ if (rc) {
+ *max_rx = 0;
+ *max_tx = 0;
}
/* On P5 chips, max_cp output param should be available NQs */
*max_cp = max_irq;
The recent commit to trim the RX and TX rings on P5 chips by assigning each with max CP rings divided by 2 is not correct. Max CP rings divided by 2 may be bigger than the original RX or TX and would lead to failure. In other words, we may be checking for increased RX/TX rings than required and it may fail. Fix it by calling __bnxt_trim_rings() instead that would properly trim RX and TX without the possibility of increasing their values. Fixes: f5b29c6afe36 ("bnxt_en: Add helper to get the number of CP rings required for TX rings") Reviewed-by: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@broadcom.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c | 16 +++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)