netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
Cc: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srk@ti.com,
	Pekka Varis <p-varis@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: enable DSCP to priority map for RX
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 01:16:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZzVBS1zXIy31pnaf@debian> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241109-am65-cpsw-multi-rx-dscp-v3-2-1cfb76928490@kernel.org>

On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 01:00:08PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> AM65 CPSW hardware can map the 6-bit DSCP/TOS field to
> appropriate priority queue via DSCP to Priority mapping registers
> (CPSW_PN_RX_PRI_MAP_REG).
> 
> We use the upper 3 bits of the DSCP field that indicate IP Precedence
> to map traffic to 8 priority queues.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c
> index 0520e9f4bea7..fab35e6aac7f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PORT_REG_RX_PRI_MAP		0x020
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PORT_REG_RX_MAXLEN		0x024
>  
> +#define AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_CTL			0x004
> +#define AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_DSCP_MAP		0x120
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_SA_L		0x308
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_SA_H		0x30c
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_TS_CTL              0x310
> @@ -94,6 +96,10 @@
>  /* AM65_CPSW_PORT_REG_PRI_CTL */
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PORT_REG_PRI_CTL_RX_PTYPE_RROBIN	BIT(8)
>  
> +/* AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_CTL */
> +#define AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_CTL_DSCP_IPV4_EN	BIT(1)
> +#define AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_CTL_DSCP_IPV6_EN	BIT(2)
> +
>  /* AM65_CPSW_PN_TS_CTL register fields */
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PN_TS_CTL_TX_ANX_F_EN		BIT(4)
>  #define AM65_CPSW_PN_TS_CTL_TX_VLAN_LT1_EN	BIT(5)
> @@ -176,6 +182,53 @@ static void am65_cpsw_port_set_sl_mac(struct am65_cpsw_port *slave,
>  	writel(mac_lo, slave->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_SA_L);
>  }
>  
> +#define AM65_CPSW_DSCP_MAX	GENMASK(5, 0)
> +#define AM65_CPSW_PRI_MAX	GENMASK(2, 0)
> +#define AM65_CPSW_DSCP_PRI_PER_REG	8
> +#define AM65_CPSW_DSCP_PRI_SIZE		4	/* in bits */
> +static int am65_cpsw_port_set_dscp_map(struct am65_cpsw_port *slave, u8 dscp, u8 pri)
> +{
> +	int reg_ofs;
> +	int bit_ofs;
> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	if (dscp > AM65_CPSW_DSCP_MAX)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pri > AM65_CPSW_PRI_MAX)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	/* 32-bit register offset to this dscp */
> +	reg_ofs = (dscp / AM65_CPSW_DSCP_PRI_PER_REG) * 4;
> +	/* bit field offset to this dscp */
> +	bit_ofs = AM65_CPSW_DSCP_PRI_SIZE * (dscp % AM65_CPSW_DSCP_PRI_PER_REG);
> +
> +	val = readl(slave->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_DSCP_MAP + reg_ofs);
> +	val &= ~(AM65_CPSW_PRI_MAX << bit_ofs);	/* clear */
> +	val |= pri << bit_ofs;			/* set */
> +	writel(val, slave->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_DSCP_MAP + reg_ofs);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void am65_cpsw_port_enable_dscp_map(struct am65_cpsw_port *slave)
> +{
> +	int dscp, pri;
> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	/* Map IP Precedence field to Priority */
> +	for (dscp = 0; dscp <= AM65_CPSW_DSCP_MAX; dscp++) {
> +		pri = dscp >> 3; /* Extract IP Precedence */
> +		am65_cpsw_port_set_dscp_map(slave, dscp, pri);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* enable port IPV4 and IPV6 DSCP for this port */
> +	val = readl(slave->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_CTL);
> +	val |= AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_CTL_DSCP_IPV4_EN |
> +		AM65_CPSW_PN_REG_CTL_DSCP_IPV6_EN;
> +	writel(val, slave->port_base + AM65_CPSW_PORTN_REG_CTL);
> +}

It seems that this hardware is capable of mapping all possible DSCP
values. Then why restricting the mapping to the 3 high order bits only?
According to RFC 8325 section 2.3, this seem to be a common practice,
which this RFC considers a problem:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8325#section-2.3

I know this RFC is about 802.11, not 802.1p, but as far as I know, the
user priority (UP) are the same for both, so that shouldn't make a
difference.

So what about following the IETF mapping found in section 4.3?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8325#section-4.3

>  static void am65_cpsw_sl_ctl_reset(struct am65_cpsw_port *port)
>  {
>  	cpsw_sl_reset(port->slave.mac_sl, 100);
> @@ -921,6 +974,7 @@ static int am65_cpsw_nuss_ndo_slave_open(struct net_device *ndev)
>  	common->usage_count++;
>  
>  	am65_cpsw_port_set_sl_mac(port, ndev->dev_addr);
> +	am65_cpsw_port_enable_dscp_map(port);
>  
>  	if (common->is_emac_mode)
>  		am65_cpsw_init_port_emac_ale(port);
> 
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-11-14  0:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-09 11:00 [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: enable DSCP to priority map for RX Roger Quadros
2024-11-09 11:00 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: update pri_thread_map as per IEEE802.1Q-2014 Roger Quadros
2024-11-09 11:00 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: enable DSCP to priority map for RX Roger Quadros
2024-11-11  5:28   ` Siddharth Vadapalli
2024-11-14  0:16   ` Guillaume Nault [this message]
2024-11-14  9:41     ` Roger Quadros
2024-11-14 10:12       ` Roger Quadros
2024-11-14 12:02         ` Guillaume Nault
2024-11-14 12:47           ` Roger Quadros
2024-11-14 13:17             ` Guillaume Nault
2024-11-14 12:13       ` Guillaume Nault
2024-11-12 14:08 ` [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] " Simon Horman
2024-11-14  0:19   ` Guillaume Nault
2024-11-14  8:55     ` Roger Quadros

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=ZzVBS1zXIy31pnaf@debian \
    --to=gnault@redhat.com \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@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 \
    /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).