Messages in this thread | | | From | Vladimir Oltean <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 7/8] net: mscc: ocelot: use index to set vcap policer | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:22:27 +0000 |
| |
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:30:59AM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > > In commit commit b596229448dd ("net: mscc: ocelot: Add support for tcam"), Horatiu Vultur define the max number of policers as 383: > > +#define OCELOT_POLICER_DISCARD 0x17f > > VCAP IS2 use this policer to set drop action. I did not change this and set the VCAP policers with 128-191 according to the VSC7514 document. > > > > I don't know why 383 was used as the maximum value of policer in the original code. Can Microchip people check the code or the documentation for errors? > > It was defined as 383 because the HW actually support this number of > policers. But for this SKU it is recomended to use 191, but no one will > stop you from using 383.
So if it is recommended to use 191, why did you use 383? Should Xiaoliang change that to 191, or leave it alone?
> > > Also, FWIW, Seville has this policer allocation: > > > > > > 0 ----+----------------------+ > > > | Port Policers (11) | > > > 11 ----+----------------------+ > > > | VCAP Policers (21) | > > > 32 ----+----------------------+ > > > | QoS Policers (88) | > > > 120 ----+----------------------+ > > > | VCAP Policers (43) | > > > 162 ----+----------------------+ > > > > I didn't find Seville's document, if this allocation is right, I will add it in Seville driver.
Strange enough, I don't remember having reports about the VCAP IS2 policers on Seville not working, and of course being in the common code, we'd start with a count of 384 policers for that hardware too, and counting from the end. I think I even tested the policers when adding the VCAP IS2 constants, and they worked. Is there any sort of index wraparound that takes place?
| |