[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250109172714.GN7706@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 17:27:14 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Luo Jie <quic_luoj@...cinc.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Lei Wei <quic_leiwei@...cinc.com>,
Suruchi Agarwal <quic_suruchia@...cinc.com>,
Pavithra R <quic_pavir@...cinc.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
quic_kkumarcs@...cinc.com, quic_linchen@...cinc.com,
srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org,
john@...ozen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 04/14] net: ethernet: qualcomm: Initialize
PPE buffer management for IPQ9574
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0800, Luo Jie wrote:
> The BM (Buffer Management) config controls the pause frame generated
> on the PPE port. There are maximum 15 BM ports and 4 groups supported,
> all BM ports are assigned to group 0 by default. The number of hardware
> buffers configured for the port influence the threshold of the flow
> control for that port.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luo Jie <quic_luoj@...cinc.com>
...
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_config.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_config.c
...
> +/* The buffer configurations per PPE port. There are 15 BM ports and
> + * 4 BM groups supported by PPE. BM port (0-7) is for EDMA port 0,
> + * BM port (8-13) is for PPE physical port 1-6 and BM port 14 is for
> + * EIP port.
> + */
> +static struct ppe_bm_port_config ipq9574_ppe_bm_port_config[] = {
> + {
> + /* Buffer configuration for the BM port ID 0 of EDMA. */
> + .port_id_start = 0,
> + .port_id_end = 0,
> + .pre_alloc = 0,
> + .in_fly_buf = 100,
> + .ceil = 1146,
> + .weight = 7,
> + .resume_offset = 8,
> + .resume_ceil = 0,
> + .dynamic = true,
> + },
> + {
> + /* Buffer configuration for the BM port ID 1-7 of EDMA. */
> + .port_id_start = 1,
> + .port_id_end = 7,
> + .pre_alloc = 0,
> + .in_fly_buf = 100,
> + .ceil = 250,
> + .weight = 4,
> + .resume_offset = 36,
> + .resume_ceil = 0,
> + .dynamic = true,
> + },
> + {
> + /* Buffer configuration for the BM port ID 8-13 of PPE ports. */
> + .port_id_start = 8,
> + .port_id_end = 13,
> + .pre_alloc = 0,
> + .in_fly_buf = 128,
> + .ceil = 250,
> + .weight = 4,
> + .resume_offset = 36,
> + .resume_ceil = 0,
> + .dynamic = true,
> + },
> + {
> + /* Buffer configuration for the BM port ID 14 of EIP. */
> + .port_id_start = 14,
> + .port_id_end = 14,
> + .pre_alloc = 0,
> + .in_fly_buf = 40,
> + .ceil = 250,
> + .weight = 4,
> + .resume_offset = 36,
> + .resume_ceil = 0,
> + .dynamic = true,
> + },
> +};
> +
> +static int ppe_config_bm_threshold(struct ppe_device *ppe_dev, int bm_port_id,
> + struct ppe_bm_port_config port_cfg)
> +{
> + u32 reg, val, bm_fc_val[2];
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Configure BM flow control related threshold. */
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_WEIGHT(bm_fc_val, port_cfg.weight);
Hi Luo Jie,
When compiling with W=1 for x86_32 and ARM (32bit)
(but, curiously not x86_64 or arm64), gcc-14 complains that
bm_fc_val is uninitialised, I believe due to the line above and
similar lines below.
In file included from drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_config.c:10:
In function 'u32p_replace_bits',
inlined from 'ppe_config_bm_threshold' at drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_config.c:112:2:
./include/linux/bitfield.h:189:15: warning: 'bm_fc_val' is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized]
189 | *p = (*p & ~to(field)) | type##_encode_bits(val, field); \
| ^~
./include/linux/bitfield.h:198:9: note: in expansion of macro '____MAKE_OP'
198 | ____MAKE_OP(u##size,u##size,,)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/bitfield.h:201:1: note: in expansion of macro '__MAKE_OP'
201 | __MAKE_OP(32)
| ^~~~~~~~~
drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_config.c: In function 'ppe_config_bm_threshold':
drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_config.c:108:23: note: 'bm_fc_val' declared here
108 | u32 reg, val, bm_fc_val[2];
| ^~~~~~~~~
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_RESUME_OFFSET(bm_fc_val, port_cfg.resume_offset);
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_RESUME_THRESHOLD(bm_fc_val, port_cfg.resume_ceil);
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_DYNAMIC(bm_fc_val, port_cfg.dynamic);
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_REACT_LIMIT(bm_fc_val, port_cfg.in_fly_buf);
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_PRE_ALLOC(bm_fc_val, port_cfg.pre_alloc);
> +
> + /* Configure low/high bits of the ceiling for the BM port. */
> + val = FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(2, 0), port_cfg.ceil);
The value of port_cfg.ceil is 250 or 1146, as set in
ipq9574_ppe_bm_port_config. clang-19 W=1 builds complain that this
value is too large for the field (3 bits).
drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/ppe/ppe_config.c:120:8: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_925' declared with 'error' attribute: FIELD_PREP: value too large for the field
120 | val = FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(2, 0), port_cfg.ceil);
| ^
./include/linux/bitfield.h:115:3: note: expanded from macro 'FIELD_PREP'
115 | __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
| ^
./include/linux/bitfield.h:68:3: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
68 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
| ^
./include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: expanded from macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^
note: (skipping 1 expansions in backtrace; use -fmacro-backtrace-limit=0 to see all)
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:530:2: note: expanded from macro '_compiletime_assert'
530 | __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix)
| ^
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:523:4: note: expanded from macro '__compiletime_assert'
523 | prefix ## suffix(); \
| ^
<scratch space>:95:1: note: expanded from here
95 | __compiletime_assert_925
| ^
1 error generated
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_CEILING_LOW(bm_fc_val, val);
> + val = FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(10, 3), port_cfg.ceil);
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_SET_CEILING_HIGH(bm_fc_val, val);
> +
> + reg = PPE_BM_PORT_FC_CFG_TBL_ADDR + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_CFG_TBL_INC * bm_port_id;
> + ret = regmap_bulk_write(ppe_dev->regmap, reg,
> + bm_fc_val, ARRAY_SIZE(bm_fc_val));
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* Assign the default group ID 0 to the BM port. */
> + val = FIELD_PREP(PPE_BM_PORT_GROUP_ID_SHARED_GROUP_ID, 0);
> + reg = PPE_BM_PORT_GROUP_ID_ADDR + PPE_BM_PORT_GROUP_ID_INC * bm_port_id;
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(ppe_dev->regmap, reg,
> + PPE_BM_PORT_GROUP_ID_SHARED_GROUP_ID,
> + val);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* Enable BM port flow control. */
> + val = FIELD_PREP(PPE_BM_PORT_FC_MODE_EN, true);
> + reg = PPE_BM_PORT_FC_MODE_ADDR + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_MODE_INC * bm_port_id;
> +
> + return regmap_update_bits(ppe_dev->regmap, reg,
> + PPE_BM_PORT_FC_MODE_EN,
> + val);
> +}
...
--
pw-bot: changes-requested
Powered by blists - more mailing lists