lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] octeon_ep: PF-VF mailbox version support
Date
Hi Shenijan

> > +#define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_VERSION_CURRENT
> OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_VERSION_V1
> > +
> > enum octep_pfvf_mbox_opcode {
> > OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_VERSION,
> > OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_SET_MTU,
> > @@ -30,7 +34,7 @@ enum octep_pfvf_mbox_opcode {
> > OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_GET_LINK_STATUS,
> > OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_GET_MTU,
> > OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_DEV_REMOVE,
> > - OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_LAST,
> > + OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_MAX,
> > };
> This change is unrelative with
> this enum is introduced in the first patch, why not directly rename it
> in the first one?

That is correct. These changes were ported from our original development release internal repos in order
to also reflect the development history, but I think this particular detail can be avoided by fixing it
in the original patch as it doesn't seem too relevant. I can do that in the next patchset.

> >
> > enum octep_pfvf_mbox_word_type {
> > @@ -79,7 +83,6 @@ enum octep_pfvf_link_autoneg {
> >
> > #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_TIMEOUT_MS 500
> > #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_MAX_RETRIES 2
> > -#define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_VERSION 0
> Similar here,  you introduce it in first patch, and no place used, then
> remove it int the second one.
> Maybe you can reorganize this patchset ?
>
> > #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_MAX_DATA_SIZE 6
> > #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_MORE_FRAG_FLAG 1
> > #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_WRITE_WAIT_TIME msecs_to_jiffies(1)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-12-14 17:17    [W:0.310 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site