On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:02:13PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 17/09/2025 12:05, Yibo Dong wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:45:31AM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> > > On 16/09/2025 12:29, Dong Yibo wrote:
> > > > Add fundamental firmware (FW) communication operations via PF-FW
> > > > mailbox, including:
> > > > - FW sync (via HW info query with retries)
> > > > - HW reset (post FW command to reset hardware)
> > > > - MAC address retrieval (request FW for port-specific MAC)
> > > > - Power management (powerup/powerdown notification to FW)
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dong Yibo <dong...@mucse.com>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedore...@linux.dev>
> > >
> > > small nits below
> > >
> > >
> > > > +static void build_get_hw_info_req(struct mbx_fw_cmd_req *req)
> > > > +{
> > > > + req->flags = 0;
> > > > + req->opcode = cpu_to_le16(GET_HW_INFO);
> > > > + req->datalen = cpu_to_le16(MUCSE_MBX_REQ_HDR_LEN);
> > > > + req->reply_lo = 0;
> > > > + req->reply_hi = 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > All these build*() functions re-init flags and reply to 0, but all
> > > mbx_fw_cmd_req are zero-inited on the stack. Might be better clean
> > > things assignments, but no strong opinion because the code is explicit
> > >
> > > If you will think of refactoring this part, it might be a good idea to
> > > avoid build*() functions at all and do proper initialization of
> > > mbx_fw_cmd_req in callers?
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * mucse_mbx_get_info - Get hw info from fw
> > > > + * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> > > > + *
> > > > + * mucse_mbx_get_info tries to get hw info from hw.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure
> > > > + **/
> > > > +static int mucse_mbx_get_info(struct mucse_hw *hw)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply reply = {};
> > > > + struct mbx_fw_cmd_req req = {};
> > >
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > struct mbx_fw_cmd_req req =
> > > {
> > > .opcode = cpu_to_le16(GET_HW_INFO),
> > > .datalen = cpu_to_le16(MUCSE_MBX_REQ_HDR_LEN),
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's a good idea! That makes the code more compact.
> > I think I should update this as your suggestion.
> >
> > Regarding adding your "Reviewed-by" tag in the next version:
> > Would it be acceptable to include it when I submit the updated patch (with
> > the initialization logic adjusted), or should I wait for your further
> > review of the modified code first?
>
> If you will submit another version with this refactoring, I'll better do
> another review.
>
I see, I will submit another version later, with this refactoring.
Looking forward to your next review.
Thanks for your feedback.
