On 5/5/25 6:26 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
[...]

+/* validate the rxnfc rule and convert it to policer config */
+static int am65_cpsw_rxnfc_validate(struct am65_cpsw_port *port,
+				    struct ethtool_rxnfc *rxnfc,
+				    struct cpsw_ale_policer_cfg *cfg)
+{
+	struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec *fs = &rxnfc->fs;
+	int flow_type = AM65_CPSW_FLOW_TYPE(fs->flow_type);
+	struct ethhdr *eth_mask;

(Minor nit only mentioned because of more relevant comments on previous
patch) Please respect the reverse christmas tree order above.

+
+	memset(cfg, 0, sizeof(*cfg));
+
+	if (flow_type & FLOW_RSS)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (fs->location == RX_CLS_LOC_ANY ||
+	    fs->location >= port->rxnfc_max)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (fs->ring_cookie == RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
+		cfg->drop = true;
+	else if (fs->ring_cookie > AM65_CPSW_MAX_QUEUES)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	cfg->port_id = port->port_id;
+	cfg->thread_id = fs->ring_cookie;
+
+	switch (flow_type) {
+	case ETHER_FLOW:
+		eth_mask = &fs->m_u.ether_spec;
+
+		/* etherType matching is supported by h/w but not yet here */
+		if (eth_mask->h_proto)
+			return -EINVAL;
+
+		/* Only support source matching addresses by full mask */
+		if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(eth_mask->h_source)) {
+			cfg->match_flags |= CPSW_ALE_POLICER_MATCH_MACSRC;
+			ether_addr_copy(cfg->src_addr,
+					fs->h_u.ether_spec.h_source);
+		}
+
+		/* Only support destination matching addresses by full mask */
+		if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(eth_mask->h_dest)) {
+			cfg->match_flags |= CPSW_ALE_POLICER_MATCH_MACDST;
+			ether_addr_copy(cfg->dst_addr,
+					fs->h_u.ether_spec.h_dest);
+		}
+
+		if ((fs->flow_type & FLOW_EXT) && fs->m_ext.vlan_tci) {
+			/* Don't yet support vlan ethertype */
+			if (fs->m_ext.vlan_etype)
+				return -EINVAL;
+
+			if (fs->m_ext.vlan_tci != VLAN_TCI_FULL_MASK)
+				return -EINVAL;
+
+			cfg->vid = FIELD_GET(VLAN_VID_MASK,
+					     ntohs(fs->h_ext.vlan_tci));
+			cfg->vlan_prio = FIELD_GET(VLAN_PRIO_MASK,
+						   ntohs(fs->h_ext.vlan_tci));
+			cfg->match_flags |= CPSW_ALE_POLICER_MATCH_OVLAN;
+		}
+
+		break;
+	default:
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int am65_cpsw_policer_find_match(struct am65_cpsw_port *port,
+					struct cpsw_ale_policer_cfg *cfg)
+{
+	struct am65_cpsw_rxnfc_rule *rule;
+	int loc = -EINVAL;
+
+	mutex_lock(&port->rxnfc_lock);
+	list_for_each_entry(rule, &port->rxnfc_rules, list) {
+		if (!memcmp(&rule->cfg, cfg, sizeof(*cfg))) {
+			loc = rule->location;
+			break;
+		}
+	}
+
+	mutex_unlock(&port->rxnfc_lock);
+
+	return loc;
+}
+
+static int am65_cpsw_rxnfc_add_rule(struct am65_cpsw_port *port,
+				    struct ethtool_rxnfc *rxnfc)
+{
+	struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec *fs = &rxnfc->fs;
+	struct am65_cpsw_rxnfc_rule *rule;
+	struct cpsw_ale_policer_cfg cfg;
+	int loc, ret;
+
+	if (am65_cpsw_rxnfc_validate(port, rxnfc, &cfg))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	/* need to check if similar rule is already present at another location,
+	 * if yes error out
+	 */
+	loc = am65_cpsw_policer_find_match(port, &cfg);
+	if (loc >= 0 && loc != fs->location) {
+		netdev_info(port->ndev,
+			    "rule already exists in location %d. not adding\n",
+			    loc);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	/* delete exisiting rule */
+	if (loc >= 0) {
+		mutex_lock(&port->rxnfc_lock);

The rxnfc_lock mutex is released and re-aquired after the previous
lookup. Con some other thread delete the matching rule in-between and
add another one at a different location?

/P