RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] octeon_ep: PF-VF mailbox version support

[Shinas Rasheed]

Hi Shenijan

> > +#define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_VERSION_CURRENT
> 	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_VERSION_V1
> > +
> >   enum octep_pfvf_mbox_opcode {
> >   	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_VERSION,
> >   	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_SET_MTU,
> > @@ -30,7 +34,7 @@ enum octep_pfvf_mbox_opcode {
> >   	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_GET_LINK_STATUS,
> >   	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_GET_MTU,
> >   	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_DEV_REMOVE,
> > -	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_LAST,
> > +	OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_CMD_MAX,
> >   };
> This change is unrelative with
> this enum is introduced in the first patch, why not directly rename it
> in the first one?

That is correct. These changes were ported from our original development release internal repos in order
to also reflect the development history, but I think this particular detail can be avoided by fixing it
in the original patch as it doesn't seem too relevant. I can do that in the next patchset.

> >
> >   enum octep_pfvf_mbox_word_type {
> > @@ -79,7 +83,6 @@ enum octep_pfvf_link_autoneg {
> >
> >   #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_TIMEOUT_MS     500
> >   #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_MAX_RETRIES    2
> > -#define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_VERSION        0
> Similar here,  you introduce it in first patch, and no place used, then
> remove it int the second one.
> Maybe you can reorganize this patchset ?
> 
> >   #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_MAX_DATA_SIZE  6
> >   #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_MORE_FRAG_FLAG 1
> >   #define OCTEP_PFVF_MBOX_WRITE_WAIT_TIME msecs_to_jiffies(1)