From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FF448B93; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 03:03:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0DC402BB; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 03:03:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtpbgsg2.qq.com (smtpbgsg2.qq.com [54.254.200.128]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16810400D7 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 03:03:08 +0100 (CET) X-QQ-mid: Yeas3t1763949783t694t54122 Received: from 3DB253DBDE8942B29385B9DFB0B7E889 (jiawenwu@trustnetic.com [36.20.107.59]) X-QQ-SSF: 0000000000000000000000000000000 From: =?utf-8?b?Smlhd2VuIFd1?= X-BIZMAIL-ID: 16536297905024859870 To: "'Stephen Hemminger'" Cc: , References: <20251119214756.6642de30@phoenix.local> <026101dc59e6$5f908850$1eb198f0$@trustnetic.com> In-Reply-To: <026101dc59e6$5f908850$1eb198f0$@trustnetic.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/txgbe: fix the missing old mailbox interface calls Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:03:02 +0800 Message-ID: <001701dc5ce6$7757aba0$660702e0$@trustnetic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: zh-cn Thread-Index: AQC9elXKL3qDM07uIHFB8npHaJETJgEpr90PAbZufrm3J9X4gA== X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520 Feedback-ID: Yeas:trustnetic.com:qybglogicsvrgz:qybglogicsvrgz6b-0 X-QQ-XMAILINFO: Mnff/9wu0oJYNZOhQr30h0NXrHdWiP3ff8Bv+156xiw8oIuZb2AIgtGn aG+/kLIZd+fUIldz+Inh0S/iBwlRCB71yhmGyeC0uOklKgBjCjNVjv49R07PRRwQqhakeWV WCkQZRVNgJ80TaN2icomVK+5mp+F+gX+PsW+eK9INsxv4Mif5BbovQhZ4rbE0uav4AsTCsQ rGD/nA1JI+9fwdFUTwnyTtrrsNBhZOJVdYiFXnlJ+BNEs5Zk6YBIYrsI486hFu9Cu957R2M Adxvc+PaxkB88+IoFGKOA8ol8LYr/A254aJOtxB4fP8Wyu6MePCxP3/J+IlMGJrcHD2U6EG 8ji7ncedWziTk6paY1NzpfC1pK5L0I0qs6/IH6/7yfBLs+Qx8vM7lrCTRX4oOn64CYvoQTP kUW1AtScr17aoEsHajFRCPIJ4l+TA7SZqF6P9eJbC+D31o3TP9Id+YYTwLykTBBUdMEQxws YADe/qDXqA+xEF6nrJD9QVD4V6uoQGghAGa9lQYjXuOA3KIsnoTlwFTfHnd6Ou48WiPlJRq ymz6U3s1Lla4/ZXak9VLMY3Xl8dW9jMfbw/3ILT7bORraV9yigR8Pd7iq9ZVOukym4a1CJh RF0yeybfhGTmQHLBkhut9OjFZsWw8mMiwj5omp6h3ceX+TrMpD83Cp4i5h8sOT/J/URwUKJ 4OGtsqg5MU7qXccDHTKnUEbXbthPY79alr44doCyQ/jGW2B+ghGANKSAh/EIsh06utY7W7e FrIGO4YG2LK6Xo5KtyQPOXbUNYdOH+F9QVpH+OSiZq492npbJKS9Xg2vokD0jBCNUCe0I80 uRrAdtCsDEO0L3Y9QSI0eu/fdMhX4+W3jyqWDG16dgHzufsY+9lr/lVScHlVj+75oOl04QC UhdETFhncaojYQj8I/Orxu4i1lY9woJWcXanz8dPqxePolvCXUMZkCbsDcWcp9L3DJgit+5 93vjmQNwJVecivwCFNwM6enoRBDhzdODwkKoeA4U3kdk8U+pyvIEtHJvCD+nSnFk3T2bEJt d3Klt0KB3WE7ZDRHxa X-QQ-XMRINFO: NS+P29fieYNw95Bth2bWPxk= X-QQ-RECHKSPAM: 0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 2:25 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 1:48 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 16:56:24 +0800 > > Jiawen Wu wrote: > > > > > @@ -28,6 +29,9 @@ void txgbe_init_ops_aml40(struct txgbe_hw *hw) > > > mac->init_mac_link_ops = txgbe_init_mac_link_ops_aml40; > > > mac->get_link_capabilities = txgbe_get_link_capabilities_aml40; > > > mac->check_link = txgbe_check_mac_link_aml40; > > > + > > > + /* MAILBOX */ > > > + mbx->host_interface_command = txgbe_host_interface_command_aml; > > > } > > > > Maybe that comment means something to you, but it seems like something > > the next maintainer would not know what it means. Could you explain it more? > > For different devices, the mailbox flow between software and firmware is > different. There are several mailbox command in the txgbe driver, but only > txgbe_hic_sr_read() was changed to use the new flow in commit > 6a139ade82e7 ("net/txgbe: add new SW-FW mailbox interface"). Because > this function invoke the txgbe_hic_unlocked() directly without SW-FW > semaphore, I guess. > > It lead to other mailbox commands timeout for Amber-Lite devices, which > is required to use the new flow. So this patch fills in the missing part. > > For the sake of code tidy, txgbe_hic_sr_read() should change to use the > locked function txgbe_host_interface_command(), and this function could > be change to pointer in struct txgbe_mbx_info for different devices. Hi Stephen Hemminger, Does this explanation is sufficient? Should I send v2 patch with these logs?