RE: [net-next Patch 4/5] octeontx2-af: replace generic error codes

[Hariprasad Kelam]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hariprasad Kelam
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 9:42 AM
> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Geethasowjanya Akula <gakula@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jerinj@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Linu Cherian <lcherian@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Subbaraya
> Sundeep Bhatta <sbhatta@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Naveen Mamindlapalli
> <naveenm@xxxxxxxxxxx>; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [net-next Patch 4/5] octeontx2-af: replace generic error codes
> 
> 
> 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 16:53:56 +0530 Hariprasad Kelam wrote:
> > > currently, if any netdev is not mapped to the MAC block(cgx/rpm)
> > > requests MAC feature, AF driver returns a generic error like -EPERM.
> > > This patch replaces generic error codes with driver-specific error
> > > codes for better debugging
> >
> > The custom error codes are not liked upstream, they make much harder
> > for people who don't work on the driver to refactor it.
> >
> > If you want debugging isn't it better to add a tracepoint to the checks?
> 
> Hari>>  These error codes are added in AF mailbox handlers, user space tools
> like ethool ,tc won't see these since these are between pf netdev and AF.
> During netdev driver probe/open calls, it requests AF driver to configure
> different hardware blocks MAC/network etc. If there is any error instead of
> getting EPERM, we will get block specific error codes like
> LMAC_AF_ERR_INVALID_PARAM, NIX_AF_ERR_PARAM etc.

Jakub,
Any comments here?

> 
> Thanks,
> Hariprasad k
> > --
> > pw-bot: cr