On 06/11/2024 07:22, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 04:18:10PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: > > Hello Roger, > >> IEEE802.1Q-2004 superseeds IEEE802.1D-2004. Now Priority Code Point (PCP) > > nitpick: s/superseeds/supersedes ok > > Also, according to: > https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.1D/3387/ > IEEE 802.1D-2004 is superseded by 802.1Q-2014, so: > s/IEEE802.1Q-2004/IEEE802.1Q-2014/g > >> 2 is no longer at a lower priority than PCP 0. PCP 1 (Background) is still >> at a lower priority than PCP 0 (Best Effort). >> >> Reference: >> IEEE802.1Q-2004, Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks >> Table G-2 - Traffic type acronyms >> Table G-3 - Defining traffic types > > In IEEE802.1Q-2014, the tables are: > Table I-2—Traffic type acronyms > Table I-3—Defining traffic types Thanks! > >> >> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c | 25 ++++++++++++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c >> index 8d02d2b21429..7dadd95cadc5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c >> @@ -1692,26 +1692,29 @@ static void cpsw_ale_policer_reset(struct cpsw_ale *ale) >> void cpsw_ale_classifier_setup_default(struct cpsw_ale *ale, int num_rx_ch) >> { >> int pri, idx; >> - /* IEEE802.1D-2004, Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks >> + /* IEEE802.1Q-2004, Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks >> * Table G-2 - Traffic type acronyms >> * Table G-3 - Defining traffic types >> - * User priority values 1 and 2 effectively communicate a lower >> - * priority than 0. In the below table 0 is assigned to higher priority >> - * thread than 1 and 2 wherever possible. >> + * Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_P802.1p#Priority_levels > > Since links might change, it might be better to drop this and quote section > I.4 Traffic types and priority values of IEEE802.1Q-2014 which states: > > "0 is thus used both for default priority and for Best Effort, and > Background is associated with a priority value of 1. This means that the > value 1 effectively communicates a lower priority than 0." I agree. Will update in v2. Thanks for review. > >> + * Priority Code Point (PCP) value 1 (Background) communicates a lower >> + * priority than 0 (Best Effort). In the below table PCP 0 is assigned >> + * to a higher priority thread than PCP 1 wherever possible. >> * The below table maps which thread the user priority needs to be >> * sent to for a given number of threads (RX channels). Upper threads >> * have higher priority. >> * e.g. if number of threads is 8 then user priority 0 will map to >> - * pri_thread_map[8-1][0] i.e. thread 2 >> + * pri_thread_map[8-1][0] i.e. thread 1 >> */ >> - int pri_thread_map[8][8] = { { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, }, >> + >> + int pri_thread_map[8][8] = { /* BK,BE,EE,CA,VI,VO,IC,NC */ >> + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, }, >> { 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, }, >> { 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, }, >> - { 1, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, }, >> - { 1, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, }, >> - { 1, 0, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, }, >> - { 1, 0, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, }, >> - { 2, 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, } }; >> + { 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, }, >> + { 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, }, >> + { 1, 0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, }, >> + { 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, }, >> + { 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 } }; >> >> cpsw_ale_policer_reset(ale); > > Regards, > Siddharth. -- cheers, -roger
