On 4/27/2021 2:43 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>
>
> 在 2021/4/27 21:19, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>> On 4/27/2021 2:03 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Let me clarify what I mean, 'msg' is accessed with an index like
>> "req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]", and the 'req->msg' type is different as
>> you
>> change the 'req' type. It changes 'uint8_t' -> 'uint16_t', which makes
>> "req->msg[LINK_FAIL_CODE_OFFSET]" point completely different location, can
>> you
>> please confirm this is expected/correct?
>>
> Hi, it is corect, we have tested it.
Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.
