net: enetc: correct the indexes of highest and 2nd highest TCs

[ Upstream commit 21225873be ]

For ENETC hardware, the TCs are numbered from 0 to N-1, where N
is the number of TCs. Numerically higher TC has higher priority.
It's obvious that the highest priority TC index should be N-1 and
the 2nd highest priority TC index should be N-2.

However, the previous logic uses netdev_get_prio_tc_map() to get
the indexes of highest priority and 2nd highest priority TCs, it
does not make sense and is incorrect to give a "tc" argument to
netdev_get_prio_tc_map(). So the driver may get the wrong indexes
of the two highest priotiry TCs which would lead to failed to set
the CBS for the two highest priotiry TCs.

e.g.
$ tc qdisc add dev eno0 parent root handle 100: mqprio num_tc 6 \
	map 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 queues 1@0 1@1 1@2 1@3 2@4 2@6 hw 1
$ tc qdisc replace dev eno0 parent 100:6 cbs idleslope 100000 \
	sendslope -900000 hicredit 12 locredit -113 offload 1
$ Error: Specified device failed to setup cbs hardware offload.
  ^^^^^

In this example, the previous logic deems the indexes of the two
highest priotiry TCs should be 3 and 2. Actually, the indexes are
5 and 4, because the number of TCs is 6. So it would be failed to
configure the CBS for the two highest priority TCs.

Fixes: c431047c4e ("enetc: add support Credit Based Shaper(CBS) for hardware offload")
Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_qos.c

@@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ int enetc_setup_tc_cbs(struct net_device *ndev, void *type_data)
 	int bw_sum = 0;
 	u8 bw;
 
-	prio_top = netdev_get_prio_tc_map(ndev, tc_nums - 1);
-	prio_next = netdev_get_prio_tc_map(ndev, tc_nums - 2);
+	prio_top = tc_nums - 1;
+	prio_next = tc_nums - 2;
 
 	/* Support highest prio and second prio tc in cbs mode */
 	if (tc != prio_top && tc != prio_next)