在 2021/4/27 20:45, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
On 4/27/2021 1:17 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
From: Chengwen Feng <fengcheng...@huawei.com>
The link fails code should be parsed using the structure
hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd, else it will parse fail.
Fixes: 109e4dd1bd7a ("net/hns3: get link state change through mailbox")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengcheng...@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humi...@huawei.com>
---
v3:
* get the parameter as 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' at first place.
v2:
* kept original API interface.
---
drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
index ba04ac9..31ab130 100644
--- a/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/hns3/hns3_mbx.c
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ hns3_link_fail_parse(struct hns3_hw *hw, uint8_t
link_fail_code)
static void
hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(struct hns3_hw *hw,
- struct hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd *req)
+ struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *req)
{
#define LINK_STATUS_OFFSET 1
#define LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET 2
@@ -513,7 +513,14 @@ hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg(struct hns3_hw *hw)
hns3_handle_asserting_reset(hw, req);
break;
case HNS3_MBX_PUSH_LINK_STATUS:
- hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw, req);
+ /*
+ * This message is reported by the firmware and is
+ * reported in 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' format.
+ * Therefore, we should cast the req variable to
+ * 'struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd' and then process it.
+ */
I am asking just to double check, the 'msg' type is different of
'hns3_mbx_pf_to_vf_cmd' & 'hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd', one is 'uint8_t', other is
'uint16_t', and 'msg' is used in the function
'hns3pf_handle_link_change_event()'.
Is the 'msg' usage still correct after this change?
Hi, it is correct.
Currently, msg from PF or VF are all handled in the same
handler（hns3_dev_handle_mbx_msg）, we do different handling
according to different msg.
In futrue, we will separate handler from PF and VF.
+ hns3pf_handle_link_change_event(hw,
+ (struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd *)req);
Will it be more readable if 'desc->data' cast to "struct hns3_mbx_vf_to_pf_cmd
*" (instead of 'req')? Up to you, I can proceed with this one if you prefer.
.
OK, thanks Ferruh.
