[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63af9ff7-0008-4795-a78b-9bed84d75ae0@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 05:56:30 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
Cc: andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
corbet@....net, gur.stavi@...wei.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, danishanwar@...com, lee@...ger.us,
gongfan1@...wei.com, lorenzo@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com, lukas.bulwahn@...hat.com,
alexanderduyck@...com, richardcochran@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] net: rnpgbe: Add n500/n210 chip support
> It means driver version 0.2.4.16.
And what does that mean?
> I used it in 'mucse_mbx_ifinsmod'(patch4, I will move this to that patch),
> to echo 'driver version' to FW. FW reply different command for different driver.
There only is one driver. This driver.
This all sounds backwards around. Normally the driver asks the
firmware what version it is. From that, it knows what operations the
firmware supports, and hence what it can offer to user space.
So what is your long terms plan? How do you keep backwards
compatibility between the driver and the firmware?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists