Re: [PATCH net-next v12 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx_fw support

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:02:13PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:

On 17/09/2025 12:05, Yibo Dong wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:45:31AM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:

quoted

On 16/09/2025 12:29, Dong Yibo wrote:

quoted

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 <dong100@mucse.com>

Reviewed-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>

small nits below

quoted

+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?

quoted

+
+/**
+ * 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.