Messages in this thread | | | From | Suman Ghosh <> | Subject | RE: [EXT] Re: [net PATCH V3 2/3] octeontx2-af: CN10KB: fix PFC configuration | Date | Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:16:49 +0000 |
| |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 01:12:26PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> On Tue, 2023-08-22 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Horman wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:55:15AM +0530, Suman Ghosh wrote: >> > > From: Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@marvell.com> >> > > >> > > The previous patch which added new CN10KB RPM block support, has a >> > > bug due to which PFC is not getting configured properly. >> > > This patch fixes the same. >> > >> > Hi Suman, >> > >> > I think it would be useful to describe what the bug is - it seems >> > like an incorrect mask in some cases - and how that might affect >> > users. Better still would be commands for an example usage where the >> > problem previously manifested. >> >> Suman, please address Simon's feedback above in the new iteration. [Suman] Sure. I will update in V4 >> >> > > >> > > Fixes: 99c969a83d82 ("octeontx2-pf: Add egress PFC support") >> > > Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@marvell.com> >> > > --- >> > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rpm.c | 17 >> > > +++++++++-------- >> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rpm.c >> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rpm.c >> > > index b4fcb20c3f4f..af21e2030cff 100644 >> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rpm.c >> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rpm.c >> > > @@ -355,8 +355,8 @@ int rpm_lmac_enadis_pause_frm(void *rpmd, int >> > > lmac_id, u8 tx_pause, >> > > >> > > void rpm_lmac_pause_frm_config(void *rpmd, int lmac_id, bool >> > > enable) { >> > > + u64 cfg, pfc_class_mask_cfg; >> > > rpm_t *rpm = rpmd; >> > > - u64 cfg; >> > > >> > > /* ALL pause frames received are completely ignored */ >> > > cfg = rpm_read(rpm, lmac_id, RPMX_MTI_MAC100X_COMMAND_CONFIG); >> > > @@ -380,9 +380,11 @@ void rpm_lmac_pause_frm_config(void *rpmd, >int lmac_id, bool enable) >> > > rpm_write(rpm, 0, RPMX_CMR_CHAN_MSK_OR, ~0ULL); >> > > >> > > /* Disable all PFC classes */ >> > > - cfg = rpm_read(rpm, lmac_id, RPMX_CMRX_PRT_CBFC_CTL); >> > > + pfc_class_mask_cfg = is_dev_rpm2(rpm) ? RPM2_CMRX_PRT_CBFC_CTL >: >> > > + RPMX_CMRX_PRT_CBFC_CTL; >> > >> > Maybe it is overkill, but as this appears at least twice, perhaps a >> > helper would be appropriate. >> >> I think this is a matter of personal preferences (there is another >> similar chunk with will not fit an helper, short of implementing it >> with a somewhat ugly macro. So the overall code would be asymmetric), >> >> I'm fine either way. > >Likewise, I don't feel strongly either way. [Suman] Then, I would like to keep it as is. I can consider macro/function if we are using more of it in future.
| |