[PATCH 1/1] octeontx2-af: Fix npc_delete_flow counter read for cn20k

[PATCH 1/1] octeontx2-af: Fix npc_delete_flow counter read for cn20k

[vmukunda]

From: Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@marvell.com>

On cn20k, the MCAM match counter cannot be read from
NPC_AF_MATCH_STATX. Skip reading the counter value in
npc_delete_flow on cn20k. Counter support for cn20k is TBD.

Fixes: 5f83b4729440 ("octeontx2-af: Do not access match stats for cn20k")
Signed-off-by: Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: vmukunda <vmukunda@marvell.com>
---
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc_fs.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc_fs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc_fs.c
index ea5d462a66ee..f3b0b082443b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc_fs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc_fs.c
@@ -1960,7 +1960,7 @@ int rvu_mbox_handler_npc_delete_flow(struct rvu *rvu,
 			/* single rule */
 			} else if (req->entry == iter->entry) {
 				blkaddr = rvu_get_blkaddr(rvu, BLKTYPE_NPC, 0);
-				if (blkaddr)
+				if (blkaddr && !is_cn20k(rvu->pdev))
 					rsp->cntr_val = rvu_read64(rvu, blkaddr,
 								   NPC_AF_MATCH_STATX(iter->cntr));
 				list_move_tail(&iter->list, &del_list);
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 1/1] octeontx2-af: Fix npc_delete_flow counter read for cn20k

[netdev-bot+sinfo]

Hi!

This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
commit messages seem to be missing some information:

 - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during
   development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static
   analysis tool scan.

 - Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical
   (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
   the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.

 - What hardware the change was tested on. For driver fixes please
   mention the device (and if relevant firmware version) used for
   testing, or say that the change was not tested on real hardware.

Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
then.

The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
that is the case please reply and explain.