From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com, vladimir.oltean@nxp.com, s-vadapalli@ti.com,
srk@ti.com, vigneshr@ti.com, p-varis@ti.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw-qos: Add Frame Preemption MAC Merge support
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:46:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZNYDZkjuFjF7n3VV@vergenet.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230810152538.138718-1-rogerq@kernel.org>
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 06:25:38PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
> Add driver support for viewing / changing the MAC Merge sublayer
> parameters and seeing the verification state machine's current state
> via ethtool.
>
> As hardware does not support interrupt notification for verification
> events we resort to polling on link up. On link up we try a couple of
> times for verification success and if unsuccessful then give up.
>
> The Frame Preemption feature is described in the Technical Reference
> Manual [1] in section:
> 12.3.1.4.6.7 Intersperced Express Traffic (IET – P802.3br/D2.0)
>
> Due to Silicon Errata i2208 [2] we set limit min IET fragment size to 124.
>
> [1] AM62x TRM - https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruiv7a/spruiv7a.pdf
> [2] AM62x Silicon Errata - https://www.ti.com/lit/er/sprz487c/sprz487c.pdf
>
> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
Hi Roger,
some minor feedback from my side.
...
> +static int am65_cpsw_get_mm(struct net_device *ndev, struct ethtool_mm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct am65_cpsw_common *common = am65_ndev_to_common(ndev);
> + u32 port_ctrl, cmn_ctrl, iet_ctrl, iet_status, verify_cnt;
> + struct am65_cpsw_port *port = am65_ndev_to_port(ndev);
> + struct am65_cpsw_ndev_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> + u32 add_frag_size;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&priv->mm_lock);
> +
> + iet_ctrl = readl(port->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_IET_CTRL);
> + cmn_ctrl = readl(common->cpsw_base + AM65_CPSW_REG_CTL);
cmn_ctrl appears to be set but not used.
Is this intentional?
> + port_ctrl = readl(port->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_CTL);
> +
> + state->tx_enabled = !!(iet_ctrl & AM65_CPSW_PN_IET_MAC_PENABLE);
> + state->pmac_enabled = !!(port_ctrl & AM65_CPSW_PN_CTL_IET_PORT_EN);
> +
> + iet_status = readl(port->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_IET_STATUS);
> +
> + if (iet_ctrl & AM65_CPSW_PN_IET_MAC_DISABLEVERIFY)
> + state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_DISABLED;
> + else if (iet_status & AM65_CPSW_PN_MAC_VERIFIED)
> + state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED;
> + else if (iet_status & AM65_CPSW_PN_MAC_VERIFY_FAIL)
> + state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_FAILED;
> + else
> + state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_UNKNOWN;
> +
> + add_frag_size = AM65_CPSW_PN_IET_MAC_GET_ADDFRAGSIZE(iet_ctrl);
> + state->tx_min_frag_size = ethtool_mm_frag_size_add_to_min(add_frag_size);
> +
> + /* Errata i2208: RX min fragment size cannot be less than 124 */
> + state->rx_min_frag_size = 124;
> +
> + /* FPE active if common tx_enabled and verification success or disabled (forced) */
> + state->tx_active = state->tx_enabled &&
> + (state->verify_status == ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED ||
> + state->verify_status == ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_DISABLED);
> + state->verify_enabled = !(iet_ctrl & AM65_CPSW_PN_IET_MAC_DISABLEVERIFY);
> +
> + verify_cnt = AM65_CPSW_PN_MAC_GET_VERIFY_CNT(readl(port->port_base +
> + AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_IET_VERIFY));
Likewise, verify_cnt appears to be set but not used.
> + state->verify_time = port->qos.iet.verify_time_ms;
> + state->max_verify_time = am65_cpsw_iet_get_verify_timeout_ms(AM65_CPSW_PN_MAC_VERIFY_CNT_MASK,
> + port);
> + mutex_unlock(&priv->mm_lock);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> +void am65_cpsw_iet_change_preemptible_tcs(struct am65_cpsw_port *port, u8 preemptible_tcs)
nit: should this function be static?
> +{
> + port->qos.iet.preemptible_tcs = preemptible_tcs;
> + am65_cpsw_iet_commit_preemptible_tcs(port);
> +}
> +
> +void am65_cpsw_iet_link_state_update(struct net_device *ndev)
Ditto
> +{
> + struct am65_cpsw_ndev_priv *priv = am65_ndev_to_priv(ndev);
> + struct am65_cpsw_port *port = am65_ndev_to_port(ndev);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&priv->mm_lock);
> + am65_cpsw_iet_commit_preemptible_tcs(port);
> + mutex_unlock(&priv->mm_lock);
> +}
...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-11 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-10 15:25 [PATCH v2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw-qos: Add Frame Preemption MAC Merge support Roger Quadros
2023-08-10 15:47 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-08-11 15:26 ` Roger Quadros
2023-08-11 9:46 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2023-08-11 15:32 ` Roger Quadros
2023-08-13 7:45 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZNYDZkjuFjF7n3VV@vergenet.net \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p-varis@ti.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rogerq@kernel.org \
--cc=s-vadapalli@ti.com \
--cc=srk@ti.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
--cc=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).