Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] misc: amd-sbi: Add support for mailbox error codes

[Gupta, Akshay]

On 10/15/2024 3:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 02:42:08PM +0530, Gupta, Akshay wrote:
> > On 10/13/2024 8:49 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 07:08:06AM +0000, Akshay Gupta wrote:
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/misc/amd-apml.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/misc/amd-apml.h
> > > > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ struct apml_message {
> > > >                 __u32 mb_in[2];
> > > >                 __u8 reg_in[8];
> > > >         } data_in;
> > > > +     /*
> > > > +      * Error code is returned in case of soft mailbox
> > > > +      */
> > > > +     __u32 fw_ret_code;
> > > >    } __attribute__((packed));
> > > You can not just randomly change the size of a user/kernel structure
> > > like this, what just broke because of this?
> > >
> > > confused,
> > The changes are not because of anything is broken, we support 3 different
> > protocol under 1 IOCTL using the same structure. I split the patch to make
> > it easy to review.
> > Modification in patch 4, is only for the existing code. This patch (patch 5)
> > has additional functionality, so we do not want add multiple changes in
> > single patch (patch 4).
> >
> > The changes done in patches are as follows:
> >
> > Patch 4:
> >
> > - Adding basic structure as per current protocol in upstream kernel
> So what if we only take the first 4 patches?  Now any changes after that
> would change the user/kernel api and break things.

Yes, it will break. We need all the patches to go.

> Please don't write changes and then "fix them up" later on, that's not
> how to do stuff as it makes it very difficult to review.  What would you
> want to see if _you_ had to review this patch series?

We submitted a single patch in v1, later split the patch based on each 
functionality for ease of review.

I will squash and submit along with other review comments addressed.

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h