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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 01:12:26PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2023-08-22 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:55:15AM +0530, Suman Ghosh wrote:

quoted

From: Hariprasad Kelam <redacted>

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

 		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

:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+						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.