On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 02:02:07PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

+static int
+lio_pf_switchdev_attr_get(struct net_device *dev, struct switchdev_attr *attr)
+{
+	struct lio *lio = GET_LIO(dev);
+
+	switch (attr->id) {
+	case SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_PARENT_ID:
+		attr->u.ppid.id_len = ETH_ALEN;
+		ether_addr_copy(attr->u.ppid.id,
+				(void *)&lio->linfo.hw_addr + 2);

The + 2 seems odd. Please could you explain why it is there?

The "+ 2" is the byte offset of the start of the mac address.  In a
future patch, we will replace "(void *)&lio->linfo.hw_addr + 2" with
"dev->dev_addr" which is an elegant equivalent.

quoted

+static int lio_vf_rep_open(struct net_device *ndev);
+static int lio_vf_rep_stop(struct net_device *ndev);
+static int lio_vf_rep_pkt_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *ndev);
+static void lio_vf_rep_tx_timeout(struct net_device *netdev);
+static int lio_vf_rep_phys_port_name(struct net_device *dev,
+				     char *buf, size_t len);
+static void lio_vf_rep_get_stats64(struct net_device *dev,
+				   struct rtnl_link_stats64 *stats64);
+static int lio_vf_rep_change_mtu(struct net_device *ndev, int new_mtu);
+
+static const struct net_device_ops lio_vf_rep_ndev_ops = {
+	.ndo_open = lio_vf_rep_open,
+	.ndo_stop = lio_vf_rep_stop,
+	.ndo_start_xmit = lio_vf_rep_pkt_xmit,
+	.ndo_tx_timeout = lio_vf_rep_tx_timeout,
+	.ndo_get_phys_port_name = lio_vf_rep_phys_port_name,
+	.ndo_get_stats64 = lio_vf_rep_get_stats64,
+	.ndo_change_mtu = lio_vf_rep_change_mtu,
+};

Please don't use forward references. Change the order of the code and
put this structure towards the end of the file.

We will fix this in a future patch.

quoted

+lio_vf_rep_phys_port_name(struct net_device *dev,
+			  char *buf, size_t len)
+{
+	struct lio_vf_rep_desc *vf_rep = netdev_priv(dev);
+	struct octeon_device *oct = vf_rep->oct;
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = snprintf(buf, len, "pf%dvf%d", oct->pf_num,
+		       vf_rep->ifidx - oct->pf_num * 64 - 1);
+	if (ret >= len)
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

EOPNOTSUPP seems an odd return code for too short a buffer?

We will replace that with ENOBUFS in a future patch.