From: Michael Chan <michael.c...@broadcom.com> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:54:55 -0400
> @@ -7005,7 +7005,9 @@ static int __bnxt_hwrm_ver_get(struct bnxt *bp, bool > silent) > > rc = bnxt_hwrm_do_send_msg(bp, &req, sizeof(req), HWRM_CMD_TIMEOUT, > silent); > - return rc; > + if (rc) > + return -ENODEV; > + return 0; > } > > static int bnxt_hwrm_ver_get(struct bnxt *bp) ... > @@ -8528,26 +8533,53 @@ static int bnxt_hwrm_if_change(struct bnxt *bp, bool > up) > req.flags = cpu_to_le32(FUNC_DRV_IF_CHANGE_REQ_FLAGS_UP); > mutex_lock(&bp->hwrm_cmd_lock); > rc = _hwrm_send_message(bp, &req, sizeof(req), HWRM_CMD_TIMEOUT); > - if (!rc && (resp->flags & > - cpu_to_le32(FUNC_DRV_IF_CHANGE_RESP_FLAGS_RESC_CHANGE))) > - resc_reinit = true; > + if (!rc) > + flags = le32_to_cpu(resp->flags); > mutex_unlock(&bp->hwrm_cmd_lock); > + if (rc) > + return -EIO; Following up to my other review comments, if _hwrm_send_message() et al. returned consistently proper error codes instead of sometimes -1, couldn't you avoid at least some of these 'rc' remappings?
