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

[Gupta, Akshay]

On 10/18/2024 3:05 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 02:53:26PM +0530, Gupta, Akshay wrote:
> > 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.
> That's not how to submit a patch series.  Please work with the other
> kernel developers at your company to do this right before resubmitting.
> You shouldn't rely on the community to point out basic engineering
> problems like this.  Would you want to review a series like this?
>
> > > 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.
> No, don't squash, do it in a patch series, one at a time properly such
> that if we were to take any moment in time of the series, all would
> still work correctly.  That's the proper way to do any sort of software
> engineering, this isn't unique to us at all.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Hi Greg,

We have compiled and verified individual patch in the patch-set over 
reference BMC platforms.

We have an open-sourced user space library 
https://github.com/amd/esmi_oob_library/ 
<https://github.com/amd/esmi_oob_library/> which depend on the 
out-of-tree kernel modules open-sourced 
https://github.com/amd/apml_modules. <https://github.com/amd/apml_modules.>

This patch-set is an effort to upstream the out-of-tree kernel modules 
open-sourced at https://github.com/amd/apml_modules 
<https://github.com/amd/apml_modules>.

After all the patches are accepted into the Linux, we want to update the 
user-space consumers to move to drivers from Linux kernel and deprecate 
out-of-tree modules.

Thanks,

Akshay