From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D184C433F5 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99B6E61208 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:55:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 99B6E61208 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB35783845; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 03:55:19 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="oB9UM2be"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 54ACD8385E; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 03:55:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F324E83820 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 03:55:14 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kabel@kernel.org Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32DA96120A; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:55:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1636426513; bh=7q9EM17qlGIRlvkX6WutniILMmeRHB3ItOUR0yPnlSM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=oB9UM2bed+k1eA4Z8xwmPcf84dvk9fnVXzL8qjsfNyDv4X9r/zXyxi825RLFIkecL eCTofNj8RFhcRUtVNVq2ITBTkItfuETgwh0mlW+DzYusPhFOctsb0vDVzvyY/+Ivsb vZ4EXdI7LYxxJt4ZkGgEOn2doIUePQ6NBV1MMkbFHTsHLvornV7Q9kM6JC18byZZqW pPHxwPRMDv0mboWyOkm1lZFzVkRom1batPqdwpGXVRPF0qNtgVFB2DqkjxbbH2vKiy Uq4vk3fsGqpA/71mkRiT82/wDwuUkjxHx2sgjjeyIhtA+3F/F4sgB1aZt7sgRqLlIP G7HIQxfJjxrCw== Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 03:55:09 +0100 From: Marek =?UTF-8?B?QmVow7pu?= To: Roman Bacik Cc: U-Boot Mailing List , Pali Rohar , Bharat Gooty , Joe Hershberger , Ramon Fried Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] net: brcm: netXtreme driver Message-ID: <20211109035509.527c3de7@thinkpad> In-Reply-To: References: <20211108144556.v10.1.I1edaad77041c1300213c307eef6741499504047@changeid> <20211109004306.6203a36a@thinkpad> <3fee453a14f2a06628e5bb48044fde39@mail.gmail.com> <20211109021158.0c1aabcc@thinkpad> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:20:43 -0800 Roman Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 5:12 PM Marek Beh=C3=BAn wrote: > > > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 16:48:33 -0800 > > Roman Bacik wrote: > > =20 > > > To be honest changing status codes coming from FW does not seem right= . But > > > we will try to make the requested changes. =20 > > > > I looked at kernel's implementation of this driver and these hwrm > > functions and they don't return STATUS_*. > > > > Marek =20 >=20 > Marek, >=20 > This is quite a different driver and it was written for uboot. Hello Roman The drivers clearly have a common ancestor, there are far too many similarities. It clearly wasn't written from scratch for U-Boot. > If the > main objection is that Linux driver is different then maybe we should > use v10 as is. Currently hwrm methods return HW status and bnxt > methods return uboot error codes consistently. I will leave this to U-Boot's network subsystem maintainers. As I said, beggars cannot be choosers in U-Boot. As long as the driver does not introduce vendor specific stuff to the user API (in U-Boot command line), then I guess I'll have to be satisfied. Marek