Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] net: sparx5: add tc matchall port policer offload

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On 11/2/26 13:21, Daniel Machon wrote:
> This series adds offload of tc matchall filters with a police action to
> the ingress port policers of Sparx5 and lan969x, which are both served
> by the sparx5 driver.
> 
> In hardware, each ingress port has four single-rate leaky bucket
> policers. A policer drops the frames that exceed its rate and burst.
> The four policers of a port share the pass and drop statistics counters
> of the port.
> 
> The driver uses one policer per port, because with more than one, the
> statistics reported to tc could not be attributed to the right policer.
> This matches lan966x and ocelot. The policer meters each frame without
> preamble and inter-frame gap, so the configured rate is a data rate, as
> tc police expects and as on lan966x and ocelot.
> 
> Since the policer meters all ingress frames on the port, only filters on
> chain 0 with protocol all are offloaded, and filters on shared blocks
> are rejected. A police action that is already offloaded as a port
> policer on another port is rejected too, since in software it is a
> single bucket for all of its users. Only drop is supported as the exceed
> action, and the police overhead parameter is not supported.
> 
> Patch #1 drops a redundant prefix from the existing POL_UPD_INT_CFG
> register macros.
> 
> Patch #2 adds the registers used by the port policer.
> 
> Patch #3 tracks whether the ingress block of a port is shared, and adds
> the per-port policer state.
> 
> Patch #4 adds the hardware programming of the port policer.
> 
> Patch #5 adds the tc matchall offload.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com>
I understand the following will be very frustrating, but for unknown
reason AI review did not kick on this series.

The changes looks sane to me, and addressing points raised on v1, but
I think nowadays we need an explicit AI feedback.

Could you please re-submit the series?

Thanks!

Paolo