IEEE802.1Q-2004 superseeds IEEE802.1D-2004. Now Priority Code Point (PCP)
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
Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
---
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
+ * 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);
--
2.34.1
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
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
>
> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
> ---
> 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."
> + * 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.
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@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> 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
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.