From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6944C433FE for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230370AbiK3QzF (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Nov 2022 11:55:05 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43802 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229617AbiK3QzA (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Nov 2022 11:55:00 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB6A98DFD4; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:54:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id v8so24927598edi.3; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:54:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OcCrplZ/bxsidYbtcQlDIy3SLmzmFM7eevFHEhiI00E=; b=WaIwrUa82CLN0DKh4ow/BAkFb2+oV/a1LdGf1b7/Q5A/Y9SHx6cnT1PLo+I9qoRefH BNrhMF93pbjCUeZPqowWw0NYQkZkRaaYceBilPvyoRcEnIjud7mMsySNW2OW4L3/3Lq3 I5ww9Q92SGyXYe0AZhaK48V9rVHUgNrLj9KLiAXRife9/9Gaf+1fg45PffvLO/zvnIIf NdJwVEi/Ud9tS/QltJBLK5M2s6pwt7u0oP7lI1YTcM/RZtt0uyOOZAM3l4im8pMrsU4H 0Fn6zm3W+G9uUM1gKgwEljdPP+AINZNtvlL5umi4HByIhQe+/L5vqbArWeFQv+cy52wA lmCg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=OcCrplZ/bxsidYbtcQlDIy3SLmzmFM7eevFHEhiI00E=; b=YQPOFqsZIkAKS9gPLKEZ9dx6E4110kvjAswN3sT57oc3TYUapSO168bkk5j4TLSf+h vPXT/uK16+JmqRDsZyK+qDCSEPwyv02l49wgrcipwRMTTfpHanRMkp0XS+f+V36XWZB/ /R/HfCMSguW+UThEtc8O3fDgXR5aS8LcTfdyvo371VcKUeCv4DbsGRdL+OgBj9D8lc9U 9JkaeI6via7GER02wg/lj1Y1gi3Jxu4tL6llIznfcnTcIUX8cZxeV96K3/ERFiISdAI5 RW28zWdAJMLcqmYqZIeSg0SmSD52eq6oGS6n2lodud4fw/3ZLgKhHHB4DI+llSJcA14K xkEA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnIlwLDmmmwKz30VLwSXikeNx7XSNm2ZmCPM+TJoXBx6Qga40oa g4ZY1YMJkm/jBbtoHXwxyL8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6KZmMWnqLmKvd0uxHvRDnkLI1pUwtTHKVUmDAh1pMwhzYcLhLIJW2scrKmZl7m7L6YjYFuPA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:e9c:b0:458:d064:a8c2 with SMTP id h28-20020a0564020e9c00b00458d064a8c2mr56738852eda.346.1669827294319; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from skbuf ([188.26.184.222]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m2-20020aa7d342000000b0046b25b93451sm802668edr.85.2022.11.30.08.54.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:54:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:54:43 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean To: Horatiu Vultur Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, lars.povlsen@microchip.com, Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com, daniel.machon@microchip.com, richardcochran@gmail.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: lan966x: Add ptp trap rules Message-ID: <20221130165443.ewjwm3z7nbwmktcv@skbuf> References: <20221130143525.934906-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20221130143525.934906-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20221130143525.934906-5-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20221130143525.934906-5-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221130143525.934906-5-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20221130143525.934906-5-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hello Horatiu, On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 03:35:25PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c > index e5a2bbe064f8f..1f6614ee83169 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c > @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@ > #include > > #include "lan966x_main.h" > +#include "vcap_api.h" > +#include "vcap_api_client.h" > > #define LAN966X_MAX_PTP_ID 512 > > @@ -18,6 +20,17 @@ > > #define TOD_ACC_PIN 0x7 > > +/* This represents the base rule ID for the PTP rules that are added in the > + * VCAP to trap frames to CPU. This number needs to be bigger than the maximum > + * number of entries that can exist in the VCAP. > + */ > +#define LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID 1000000 > +#define LAN966X_VCAP_L2_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 0) > +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_EV_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 1) > +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_GEN_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 2) > +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_EV_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 3) > +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_GEN_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 4) > + > enum { > PTP_PIN_ACTION_IDLE = 0, > PTP_PIN_ACTION_LOAD, > @@ -35,19 +48,229 @@ static u64 lan966x_ptp_get_nominal_value(void) > return 0x304d4873ecade305; > } > > +static int lan966x_ptp_add_trap(struct lan966x_port *port, > + int (*add_ptp_key)(struct vcap_rule *vrule, > + struct lan966x_port*), > + u32 rule_id, > + u16 proto) > +{ > + struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x; > + struct vcap_rule *vrule; > + int err; > + > + vrule = vcap_get_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, rule_id); > + if (vrule) { > + u32 value, mask; > + > + /* Just modify the ingress port mask and exit */ > + vcap_rule_get_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, > + &value, &mask); > + mask &= ~BIT(port->chip_port); > + vcap_rule_mod_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, > + value, mask); > + > + err = vcap_mod_rule(vrule); > + goto free_rule; > + } > + > + vrule = vcap_alloc_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, port->dev, > + LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_L0, > + VCAP_USER_PTP, 0, rule_id); > + if (!vrule) > + return -ENOMEM; > + if (IS_ERR(vrule)) > + return PTR_ERR(vrule); > + > + err = add_ptp_key(vrule, port); > + if (err) > + goto free_rule; > + > + err = vcap_set_rule_set_actionset(vrule, VCAP_AFS_BASE_TYPE); > + err |= vcap_rule_add_action_bit(vrule, VCAP_AF_CPU_COPY_ENA, VCAP_BIT_1); > + err |= vcap_rule_add_action_u32(vrule, VCAP_AF_MASK_MODE, LAN966X_PMM_REPLACE); > + err |= vcap_val_rule(vrule, proto); > + if (err) > + goto free_rule; > + > + err = vcap_add_rule(vrule); > + > +free_rule: > + /* Free the local copy of the rule */ > + vcap_free_rule(vrule); > + return err; > +} > + > +static int lan966x_ptp_del_trap(struct lan966x_port *port, > + u32 rule_id) > +{ > + struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x; > + struct vcap_rule *vrule; > + u32 value, mask; > + int err; > + > + vrule = vcap_get_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, rule_id); > + if (!vrule) > + return -EEXIST; > + > + vcap_rule_get_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, &value, &mask); > + mask |= BIT(port->chip_port); Does the VCAP API not abstract away the negative mask representation of the IGR_PORT_MASK field? I guess someone will stumble upon this in the future and introduce a bug. In ocelot, struct ocelot_vcap_filter :: ingress_port_mask ended being used quite in a wide variety of places. It would be quite messy, unintuitive and tiring to treat it like a reverse port mask everywhere it is used. In ocelot_vcap.c, it is just reversed in the vcap_key_set() call. > + > + /* No other port requires this trap, so it is safe to remove it */ > + if (mask == GENMASK(lan966x->num_phys_ports, 0)) { > + err = vcap_del_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, port->dev, rule_id); > + goto free_rule; > + } > + > + vcap_rule_mod_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, value, mask); > + err = vcap_mod_rule(vrule); > + > +free_rule: > + vcap_free_rule(vrule); > + return err; > +} > + > +static int lan966x_ptp_add_l2_key(struct vcap_rule *vrule, > + struct lan966x_port *port) > +{ > + return vcap_rule_add_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_ETYPE, ETH_P_1588, ~0); > +} > + > +static int lan966x_ptp_add_ip_event_key(struct vcap_rule *vrule, > + struct lan966x_port *port) > +{ > + return vcap_rule_add_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_L4_DPORT, 319, ~0) || s/319/PTP_EV_PORT/ > + vcap_rule_add_key_bit(vrule, VCAP_KF_TCP_IS, VCAP_BIT_0); > +} > + > +static int lan966x_ptp_add_ip_general_key(struct vcap_rule *vrule, > + struct lan966x_port *port) > +{ > + return vcap_rule_add_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_L4_DPORT, 320, ~0) || s/320/PTP_GEN_PORT/ > + vcap_rule_add_key_bit(vrule, VCAP_KF_TCP_IS, VCAP_BIT_0); > +} > + > +static int lan966x_ptp_add_l2_rule(struct lan966x_port *port) > +{ > + return lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_l2_key, > + LAN966X_VCAP_L2_PTP_TRAP, ETH_P_ALL); > +} > + > +static int lan966x_ptp_add_ipv4_rules(struct lan966x_port *port) > +{ > + int err; > + > + err = lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_ip_event_key, > + LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_EV_PTP_TRAP, ETH_P_IP); > + if (err) > + return err; > + > + err = lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_ip_general_key, > + LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_GEN_PTP_TRAP, ETH_P_IP); > + if (err) > + lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_EV_PTP_TRAP); > + > + return err; > +} There's a comical amount of code duplication between this and ocelot_ptp.c, save for the fact that it was written by different people. Is there any possibility to reuse code with ocelot?