| Message ID | 20221130143525.934906-5-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: lan966x: Enable PTP on bridge interfaces | expand |
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 <linux/ptp_classify.h> > > #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?
The 11/30/2022 18:54, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > Hello Horatiu, Hi Vladimir, > > 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 <linux/ptp_classify.h> > > > > #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? It doesn't look like. I think some of the reasons are: - the vcap library interprets this key as any other key. It doesn't do anything special, as this library is used by other chips which might not the negative mask (currently there is no chip like this). - also usually the user doesn't need to add this mask, because is added by default if the key doesn't exist. Of course this case with ptp is more special because we try to reuse the rules in HW. > 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. ... > > +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/ Great catch! I will update these in the next version. > > > + 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? There is some code duplication but not much, as both of the implementation have the same goal, to add vcap rules in HW when enabling timestamping. The main difference between the lan966x and ocelot is that they are having a different API for the vcap. So they will need many function pointers back to the drivers to fill up the keys and then also to add the rules in vcap. I would lean reuse this code when we add similar support for sparx5.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c index f6092983d0281..cadde20505ba0 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c @@ -443,11 +443,22 @@ static int lan966x_port_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd) { struct lan966x_port *port = netdev_priv(dev); + int err; + + if (cmd == SIOCSHWTSTAMP) { + err = lan966x_ptp_setup_traps(port, ifr); + if (err) + return err; + } if (!phy_has_hwtstamp(dev->phydev) && port->lan966x->ptp) { switch (cmd) { case SIOCSHWTSTAMP: - return lan966x_ptp_hwtstamp_set(port, ifr); + err = lan966x_ptp_hwtstamp_set(port, ifr); + if (err) + lan966x_ptp_del_traps(port); + + return err; case SIOCGHWTSTAMP: return lan966x_ptp_hwtstamp_get(port, ifr); } @@ -456,7 +467,11 @@ static int lan966x_port_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *ifr, if (!dev->phydev) return -ENODEV; - return phy_mii_ioctl(dev->phydev, ifr, cmd); + err = phy_mii_ioctl(dev->phydev, ifr, cmd); + if (err && cmd == SIOCSHWTSTAMP) + lan966x_ptp_del_traps(port); + + return err; } static const struct net_device_ops lan966x_port_netdev_ops = { diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h index f2e45da7ffd4f..3491f19618358 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h @@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ #define SE_IDX_QUEUE 0 /* 0-79 : Queue scheduler elements */ #define SE_IDX_PORT 80 /* 80-89 : Port schedular elements */ +#define LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_L0 VCAP_CID_INGRESS_STAGE2_L0 /* IS2 lookup 0 */ +#define LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_L1 VCAP_CID_INGRESS_STAGE2_L1 /* IS2 lookup 1 */ +#define LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_MAX (VCAP_CID_INGRESS_STAGE2_L2 - 1) /* IS2 Max */ + /* MAC table entry types. * ENTRYTYPE_NORMAL is subject to aging. * ENTRYTYPE_LOCKED is not subject to aging. @@ -116,6 +120,14 @@ enum lan966x_fdma_action { FDMA_REDIRECT, }; +/* Controls how PORT_MASK is applied */ +enum LAN966X_PORT_MASK_MODE { + LAN966X_PMM_NO_ACTION, + LAN966X_PMM_REPLACE, + LAN966X_PMM_FORWARDING, + LAN966X_PMM_REDIRECT, +}; + struct lan966x_port; struct lan966x_db { @@ -473,6 +485,8 @@ irqreturn_t lan966x_ptp_irq_handler(int irq, void *args); irqreturn_t lan966x_ptp_ext_irq_handler(int irq, void *args); u32 lan966x_ptp_get_period_ps(void); int lan966x_ptp_gettime64(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, struct timespec64 *ts); +int lan966x_ptp_setup_traps(struct lan966x_port *port, struct ifreq *ifr); +int lan966x_ptp_del_traps(struct lan966x_port *port); int lan966x_fdma_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, __be32 *ifh, struct net_device *dev); int lan966x_fdma_xmit_xdpf(struct lan966x_port *port, 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 <linux/ptp_classify.h> #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); + + /* 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) || + 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) || + 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; +} + +static int lan966x_ptp_add_ipv6_rules(struct lan966x_port *port) +{ + int err; + + err = lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_ip_event_key, + LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_EV_PTP_TRAP, ETH_P_IPV6); + if (err) + return err; + + err = lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_ip_general_key, + LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_GEN_PTP_TRAP, + ETH_P_IPV6); + if (err) + lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_EV_PTP_TRAP); + + return err; +} + +static int lan966x_ptp_del_l2_rule(struct lan966x_port *port) +{ + return lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_L2_PTP_TRAP); +} + +static int lan966x_ptp_del_ipv4_rules(struct lan966x_port *port) +{ + int err; + + err = lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_EV_PTP_TRAP); + err |= lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_GEN_PTP_TRAP); + + return err; +} + +static int lan966x_ptp_del_ipv6_rules(struct lan966x_port *port) +{ + int err; + + err = lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_EV_PTP_TRAP); + err |= lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_GEN_PTP_TRAP); + + return err; +} + +static int lan966x_ptp_add_traps(struct lan966x_port *port) +{ + int err; + + err = lan966x_ptp_add_l2_rule(port); + if (err) + goto err_l2; + + err = lan966x_ptp_add_ipv4_rules(port); + if (err) + goto err_ipv4; + + err = lan966x_ptp_add_ipv6_rules(port); + if (err) + goto err_ipv6; + + return err; + +err_ipv6: + lan966x_ptp_del_ipv4_rules(port); +err_ipv4: + lan966x_ptp_del_l2_rule(port); +err_l2: + return err; +} + +int lan966x_ptp_del_traps(struct lan966x_port *port) +{ + int err; + + err = lan966x_ptp_del_l2_rule(port); + err |= lan966x_ptp_del_ipv4_rules(port); + err |= lan966x_ptp_del_ipv6_rules(port); + + return err; +} + +int lan966x_ptp_setup_traps(struct lan966x_port *port, struct ifreq *ifr) +{ + struct hwtstamp_config cfg; + + if (copy_from_user(&cfg, ifr->ifr_data, sizeof(cfg))) + return -EFAULT; + + if (cfg.rx_filter == HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE) + return lan966x_ptp_del_traps(port); + else + return lan966x_ptp_add_traps(port); +} + int lan966x_ptp_hwtstamp_set(struct lan966x_port *port, struct ifreq *ifr) { struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x; struct hwtstamp_config cfg; struct lan966x_phc *phc; - /* For now don't allow to run ptp on ports that are part of a bridge, - * because in case of transparent clock the HW will still forward the - * frames, so there would be duplicate frames - */ - if (lan966x->bridge_mask & BIT(port->chip_port)) - return -EINVAL; - if (copy_from_user(&cfg, ifr->ifr_data, sizeof(cfg))) return -EFAULT; diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_tc_flower.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_tc_flower.c index 04a2afd683cca..ba3fa917d6b78 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_tc_flower.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_tc_flower.c @@ -4,14 +4,6 @@ #include "vcap_api.h" #include "vcap_api_client.h" -/* Controls how PORT_MASK is applied */ -enum LAN966X_PORT_MASK_MODE { - LAN966X_PMM_NO_ACTION, - LAN966X_PMM_REPLACE, - LAN966X_PMM_FORWARDING, - LAN966X_PMM_REDIRECT, -}; - struct lan966x_tc_flower_parse_usage { struct flow_cls_offload *f; struct flow_rule *frule; diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_vcap_impl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_vcap_impl.c index 44f40d9149470..d8dc9fbb81e1a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_vcap_impl.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_vcap_impl.c @@ -5,10 +5,6 @@ #include "vcap_api.h" #include "vcap_api_client.h" -#define LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_L0 VCAP_CID_INGRESS_STAGE2_L0 /* IS2 lookup 0 */ -#define LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_L1 VCAP_CID_INGRESS_STAGE2_L1 /* IS2 lookup 1 */ -#define LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_MAX (VCAP_CID_INGRESS_STAGE2_L2 - 1) /* IS2 Max */ - #define STREAMSIZE (64 * 4) #define LAN966X_IS2_LOOKUPS 2 @@ -219,9 +215,12 @@ static void lan966x_vcap_add_default_fields(struct net_device *dev, struct vcap_rule *rule) { struct lan966x_port *port = netdev_priv(dev); + u32 value, mask; - vcap_rule_add_key_u32(rule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, 0, - ~BIT(port->chip_port)); + if (vcap_rule_get_key_u32(rule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, + &value, &mask)) + vcap_rule_add_key_u32(rule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, 0, + ~BIT(port->chip_port)); if (lan966x_vcap_is_first_chain(rule)) vcap_rule_add_key_bit(rule, VCAP_KF_LOOKUP_FIRST_IS,
Currently lan966x, doesn't allow to run PTP over interfaces that are part of the bridge. The reason is when the lan966x was receiving a PTP frame (regardless if L2/IPv4/IPv6) the HW it would flood this frame. Now that it is possible to add VCAP rules to the HW, such to trap these frames to the CPU, it is possible to run PTP also over interfaces that are part of the bridge. Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> --- .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c | 19 +- .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h | 14 ++ .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c | 237 +++++++++++++++++- .../microchip/lan966x/lan966x_tc_flower.c | 8 - .../microchip/lan966x/lan966x_vcap_impl.c | 11 +- 5 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)