On 13/08/25 12:14 pm, Yibo Dong wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 09:48:07PM +0530, Anwar, Md Danish wrote:

quoted

On 8/12/2025 3:09 PM, 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>
---
 .../device_drivers/ethernet/index.rst         |   1 +
 .../device_drivers/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe.rst  |  21 +++
 MAINTAINERS                                   |   8 +
 drivers/net/ethernet/Kconfig                  |   1 +
 drivers/net/ethernet/Makefile                 |   1 +
 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Kconfig            |  34 ++++
 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Makefile           |   7 +
 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/Makefile    |   8 +
 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe.h    |  25 +++
 .../net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_main.c   | 161 ++++++++++++++++++
 10 files changed, 267 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/device_drivers/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe.rst
 create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Kconfig
 create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Makefile
 create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/Makefile
 create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_main.c

[ ... ]

quoted

+ **/
+static int __init rnpgbe_init_module(void)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	return 0;
+}

Unnecessary code - can be simplified to just `return
pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);`

Yes, but if I add some new codes which need some free after
pci_register_driver failed, the new patch will be like this:

-return pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
+int ret:
+wq = create_singlethread_workqueue(rnpgbe_driver_name);
+ret = pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
+if (ret) {
+	destroy_workqueue(wq);
+	return ret;
+}
+return 0;

Is this ok? Maybe not good to delete code for adding new feature?
This is what Andrew suggested not to do.

In this patch series you are not modifying rnpgbe_init_module() again.
If you define a function as something in one patch and in later patches
you change it to something else - That is not encouraged, you should not
remove the code that you added in previous patches.

However here throughout your series you are not modifying this function.
Now the diff that you are showing, I don't know when you plan to post
that but as far as this series is concerned this diff is not part of the
series.

static int __init rnpgbe_init_module(void)
{
	int ret;

	ret = pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
	if (ret)
		return ret;

	return 0;
}

This to me just seems unnecessary. You can just return
pci_register_driver() now and in future whenever you add other code you
can modify the function.

It would have  made sense for you to keep it as it is if some later
patch in your series would have modified it.

quoted

quoted

+
+module_init(rnpgbe_init_module);
+
+/**
+ * rnpgbe_exit_module - Driver remove routine
+ *
+ * rnpgbe_exit_module is called when driver is removed
+ **/
+static void __exit rnpgbe_exit_module(void)
+{
+	pci_unregister_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
+}
+
+module_exit(rnpgbe_exit_module);
+
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, rnpgbe_pci_tbl);
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Mucse Corporation, [off-list ref]");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Mucse(R) 1 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Md Danish Anwar

Thanks for your feedback.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Danish