From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us.padl.com (us.padl.com [216.154.215.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E946E3AB271; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 02:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.154.215.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780452625; cv=none; b=YQHJDU99l7Dp/KoABMB62ajnbHZZ+GV8LqrKROETIR6/p7VI/fgG3iNT/m/2bMUUsBzMExBk5yUU/VeZJXuvmO1BYGTeqnubKTwG4rzH8Qv6tMQJyYp51mlR039br/DQak5TfH7aWRZJjDRMulzeg8PV2zVthV4RZ2Dv3Whz9GE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780452625; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s4CAiE4vIRteIubAn5/oiZKBCwwuTGAWnOK8l9l4tyM=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=mVkMAt22MHzeKGiZ7UywuNW9oQun+Dx3AvFiPnnHHTNgL2d76F3bbUQEqU0LdHETlFmN+oEXXEEFXERbdBAZE/AJZAwHJs4aH2MSLRM+W8oiEOlUpigSt4OlClR54AUyOaC45La8o0+JV3ACinLHa44Yghbb6e2tXe+0908BD8U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=padl.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=padl.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=padl.com header.i=@padl.com header.b=lNRyan4r; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.154.215.154 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=padl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=padl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=padl.com header.i=@padl.com header.b="lNRyan4r" Received: from auth (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by us.padl.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 65329tGr002922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:09:57 +0100 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 us.padl.com 65329tGr002922 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=padl.com; s=default; t=1780452607; bh=s4CAiE4vIRteIubAn5/oiZKBCwwuTGAWnOK8l9l4tyM=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=lNRyan4rtgIg/ve5PAW1Auf5u87osem4kwJWhSBpQWnIYL9UYghA/nHaEpn2DDcmT 9N/MZjNzGtpTitFMlzGh5xbMcf/P+bOPbVqep7eARojp0BB1WsFmNNm/ADt/s/HQlD U+p6Xf90/d3o+54GAjdN4Ca8+BqaDrLvU79WadAUSY3j2gwYOm6Flr4SkcKYi1e9lq AhGEbZrsLW0XbtoCHvbr1vmvTE9kdGR3AKKaLKS/JquMnExO7F3xzeNmhtK5SvvjE/ 0e25o4CmDPEN9gLWpcGeZQjlXLtJxyecIXTfnQNIiqfQkw2GCbEuozKjq2LQpcNDqQ GhjHZ2+5p2PIA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.500.181.1.5\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: MQPRIO support From: Luke Howard In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:09:44 +1000 Cc: Jiri Pirko , Ivan Vecera , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Ido Schimmel , Andrew Lunn , David Ahern , Shuah Khan , Andrew Lunn , Vladimir Oltean , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Max Hunter , Kieran Tyrrell Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2AC04CE3-1760-49B4-A25D-170629AAD38A@padl.com> References: <20260602-mv88e6xxx-8021qat-mqprio-v2-0-72be14522e7c@padl.com> <20260602-mv88e6xxx-8021qat-mqprio-v2-5-72be14522e7c@padl.com> To: Cedric Jehasse X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.500.181.1.5) > On 3 Jun 2026, at 7:12=E2=80=AFam, Luke Howard wrote: >=20 >> In case of per port priority mapping, i don't know if this is working = as >> expected, as the IEEE priority mapping is done at ingress. >> Eg. i think if MQPRIO channel mode is used to configure a pcp to = queue mapping >> on port 1 and a different mapping on port 2. Traffic received on port = 1 that >> gets forwarded to port 2 and egresses port 2 will end up in the queue >> configured by the mapping on port 1. As mqprio is an egress qdisc, i = don't >> think that's expected. >=20 > Good point, it=E2=80=99s interesting there is egress mapping on the = 6390 but only for FPri to DSCP. The Frame Priority Table set ordinal one = would expect for egress QPri mapping is =E2=80=9Creserved for future = use=E2=80=9D. (Be nice if it were an undocumented feature.) I misread the data sheet. Egress PCP to FPRI mapping is possible = per-port on the 6390 family. This doesn=E2=80=99t resolve the other = issue (MQPRIO-less ports on the 6352 family). But it is good news and I = will revise accordingly in the next patch revision.=