[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <399be32e-5e11-479d-bd2a-bd75de0c2ff5@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 22:30:17 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Dong Yibo <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 v5 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx_fw support
> +int mucse_mbx_get_capability(struct mucse_hw *hw)
> +{
> + struct hw_abilities ability = {};
> + int try_cnt = 3;
> + int err = -EIO;
> +
> + while (try_cnt--) {
> + err = mucse_fw_get_capability(hw, &ability);
> + if (err)
> + continue;
> + hw->pfvfnum = le16_to_cpu(ability.pfnum);
> + hw->fw_version = le32_to_cpu(ability.fw_version);
> + hw->usecstocount = le32_to_cpu(ability.axi_mhz);
If you can get it from the hardware, why do you need to initialise it
in the earlier patch?
I guess you have a bootstrap problem, you need it to get it. But
cannot you just initialise it to a single pessimistic value which will
work well enough for all hardware variants until you can actually ask
the hardware?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists