Re: [net PATCH V3 2/3] octeontx2-af: CN10KB: fix PFC configuration

[Paolo Abeni]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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.

> > 
> > Fixes: 99c969a83d82 ("octeontx2-pf: Add egress PFC support")
> > Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  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.

Cheers,

Paolo