On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:

On 12/08/2025 10:39, Dong Yibo wrote:

quoted

Add build options and doc for mucse.
Initialize pci device access for MUCSE devices.

Signed-off-by: Dong Yibo <dong100@mucse.com>
---

[...]

quoted

+/**
+ * rnpgbe_probe - Device initialization routine
+ * @pdev: PCI device information struct
+ * @id: entry in rnpgbe_pci_tbl
+ *
+ * rnpgbe_probe initializes a PF adapter identified by a pci_dev
+ * structure.
+ *
+ * @return: 0 on success, negative on failure
+ **/
+static int rnpgbe_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
+{
+	int err;
+
+	err = pci_enable_device_mem(pdev);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	err = dma_set_coherent_mask(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(56));
+	if (err) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev,
+			"No usable DMA configuration, aborting %d\n", err);
+		goto err_dma;
+	}
+
+	err = pci_request_mem_regions(pdev, rnpgbe_driver_name);
+	if (err) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev,
+			"pci_request_selected_regions failed 0x%x\n", err);
+		goto err_pci_req;
+	}
+
+	pci_set_master(pdev);
+	pci_save_state(pdev);
+
+	return 0;
+err_dma:
+err_pci_req:
+	pci_disable_device(pdev);
+	return err;
+}

Why do you need 2 different labels pointing to the very same line? The
code is not changed through patchset, I see no reasons to have it like
this

You are right, I should only 1 label here.

Thanks for your feedback.