This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html --- net: dsa: netc: initialize buffer bool table and implement flow-control The buffer pool is a quantity of memory available for buffering a group of flows (e.g. frames having the same priority, frames received from the same port), while waiting to be transmitted on a port. The buffer pool tracks internal memory consumption with upper bound limits and optionally a non-shared portion when associated with a shared buffer pool. Currently the shared buffer pool is not supported, it will be added in the future. For i.MX94, the switch has 4 ports and 8 buffer pools, so each port is allocated two buffer pools. For frames with priorities of 0 to 3, they will be mapped to the first buffer pool; For frames with priorities of 4 to 7, they will be mapped to the second buffer pool. Each buffer pool has a flow control on threshold and a flow control off threshold. By setting these threshold, add the flow control support to each port. > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/netc/netc_main.c > b/drivers/net/dsa/netc/netc_main.c > index 4b331971dd8c..2a7ad39f8bed 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/netc/netc_main.c > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/netc/netc_main.c [ ... ] > @@ -617,6 +628,80 @@ static int netc_add_standalone_fdb_bcast_entry(struct > netc_switch *priv) > bcast, NETC_STANDALONE_PVID); > } > > +static u32 netc_get_buffer_pool_num(struct netc_switch *priv) > +{ > + return netc_base_rd(&priv->regs, NETC_BPCAPR) & BPCAPR_NUM_BP; > +} > + > +static void netc_port_set_pbpmcr(struct netc_port *np, u64 mapping) > +{ > + u32 pbpmcr0 = lower_32_bits(mapping); > + u32 pbpmcr1 = upper_32_bits(mapping); > + > + netc_port_wr(np, NETC_PBPMCR0, pbpmcr0); > + netc_port_wr(np, NETC_PBPMCR1, pbpmcr1); > +} > + > +static void netc_ipv_to_buffer_pool_mapping(struct netc_switch *priv) > +{ > + int num_port_bp = priv->num_bp / priv->info->num_ports; > + int q = NETC_IPV_NUM / num_port_bp; > ^^^^ Can this cause a division by zero? If netc_get_buffer_pool_num() reads the hardware register NETC_BPCAPR and returns 0, then num_port_bp would be 0 and this division would crash the kernel. The call chain is: netc_setup() netc_switch_bpt_default_config() priv->num_bp = netc_get_buffer_pool_num() netc_ipv_to_buffer_pool_mapping() num_port_bp = priv->num_bp / priv->info->num_ports; q = NETC_IPV_NUM / num_port_bp; <- division by zero Should netc_switch_bpt_default_config() validate that priv->num_bp is non-zero before proceeding? > + int r = NETC_IPV_NUM % num_port_bp; > + int num = q + r; > + > + /* IPV-to–buffer-pool mapping per port: [ ... ] > +static int netc_switch_bpt_default_config(struct netc_switch *priv) > +{ > + priv->num_bp = netc_get_buffer_pool_num(priv); > + priv->bpt_list = devm_kcalloc(priv->dev, priv->num_bp, > + sizeof(struct bpt_cfge_data), > + GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!priv->bpt_list) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + /* Initialize the maximum threshold of each buffer pool entry */ > + for (int i = 0; i < priv->num_bp; i++) { > + struct bpt_cfge_data *cfge = &priv->bpt_list[i]; > + int err; > + > + cfge->max_thresh = cpu_to_le16(NETC_BP_THRESH); > + err = ntmp_bpt_update_entry(&priv->ntmp, i, cfge); > + if (err) > + return err; > + } > + > + netc_ipv_to_buffer_pool_mapping(priv); > + > + return 0; > +} > + [ ... ] > @@ -1224,6 +1313,40 @@ static void netc_port_set_hd_flow_control(struct > netc_port *np, bool en) > en ? PM_CMD_CFG_HD_FCEN : 0); > } > > +static void netc_port_set_tx_pause(struct netc_port *np, bool tx_pause) > +{ > + struct netc_switch *priv = np->switch_priv; > + int port = np->dp->index; > + int i, j, num_bp; > + > + num_bp = priv->num_bp / priv->info->num_ports; > + for (i = 0, j = port * num_bp; i < num_bp; i++, j++) { > + struct bpt_cfge_data *cfge; > + > + cfge = &priv->bpt_list[j]; > + if (tx_pause) { > + cfge->fc_on_thresh = cpu_to_le16(NETC_FC_THRESH_ON); > + cfge->fc_off_thresh = cpu_to_le16(NETC_FC_THRESH_OFF); > + cfge->fccfg_sbpen = FIELD_PREP(BPT_FC_CFG, > + BPT_FC_CFG_EN_BPFC); > + cfge->fc_ports = cpu_to_le32(BIT(port)); > + } else { > + cfge->fc_on_thresh = cpu_to_le16(0); > + cfge->fc_off_thresh = cpu_to_le16(0); > + cfge->fccfg_sbpen = 0; > + cfge->fc_ports = cpu_to_le32(0); > + } > + > + ntmp_bpt_update_entry(&priv->ntmp, j, cfge); > ^^^^ Should the return value of ntmp_bpt_update_entry() be checked here? Simon Horman noted in v1 review that other NTMP table operations in the driver propagate errors from the update functions. While this was fixed in netc_switch_bpt_default_config() in v2, the same issue remains here. If the hardware update fails (for example, DMA allocation failure or hardware timeout), the driver's bpt_list will have flow control values that do not match the actual hardware state, potentially causing incorrect flow control behavior. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/ > + } > +} > + [ ... ]
