Messages in this thread | | | From | Shinas Rasheed <> | Subject | RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] octeon_ep: PF-VF mailbox version support | Date | Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:16:00 +0000 |
| |
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)
| |