Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] net: sparx5: add tc matchall port policer offload

[Daniel Machon]

> > This series adds offload of tc matchall filters with a police action to
> > the ingress port policers of Sparx5 and lan969x, which are both served
> > by the sparx5 driver.
> > 
> > In hardware, each ingress port has four single-rate leaky bucket
> > policers. A policer drops the frames that exceed its rate and burst.
> > The four policers of a port share the pass and drop statistics counters
> > of the port.
> > 
> > The driver uses one policer per port, because with more than one, the
> > statistics reported to tc could not be attributed to the right policer.
> > This matches lan966x and ocelot. The policer meters each frame without
> > preamble and inter-frame gap, so the configured rate is a data rate, as
> > tc police expects and as on lan966x and ocelot.
> > 
> > Since the policer meters all ingress frames on the port, only filters on
> > chain 0 with protocol all are offloaded, and filters on shared blocks
> > are rejected. A police action that is already offloaded as a port
> > policer on another port is rejected too, since in software it is a
> > single bucket for all of its users. Only drop is supported as the exceed
> > action, and the police overhead parameter is not supported.
> > 
> > Patch #1 drops a redundant prefix from the existing POL_UPD_INT_CFG
> > register macros.
> > 
> > Patch #2 adds the registers used by the port policer.
> > 
> > Patch #3 tracks whether the ingress block of a port is shared, and adds
> > the per-port policer state.
> > 
> > Patch #4 adds the hardware programming of the port policer.
> > 
> > Patch #5 adds the tc matchall offload.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I understand the following will be very frustrating, but for unknown
> reason AI review did not kick on this series.

Yes, I noticed that. I thought you maybe had some magic button you could push,
in order to trigger the review manually.

> 
> The changes looks sane to me, and addressing points raised on v1, but
> I think nowadays we need an explicit AI feedback.

Ack. I think the missing sashiko-nipa check is not isolated to this patchset
alone. Just FYI.

> 
> Could you please re-submit the series?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Paolo
>

/Daniel