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 smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 883AEC4345F for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44624400FB; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id N2axmbQBhRlR; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Comment: SPF check N/A for local connections - client-ip=140.211.166.34; helo=ash.osuosl.org; envelope-from=intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org; receiver= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 5E3924011B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=osuosl.org; s=default; t=1713280732; bh=yk/TJspO/P7VAVdOE3KdKe9ikU8GCQN8hXuVOsa9c0M=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Cc:From; b=vlEmF9pEsG/LtOBCDqKKWlgLFYXd4ne/DvRWvX93GBN0Nkh8WGHbqCalXh8dLeds9 05qW5GEmDezpqbnnvmXy5XI3r1NtPc1NY7YAbZf2zT/iku+zQuxsp7u1LUpdN7V9BT GfUdz+WzYaEmqCEKtixW7rQDa9t7j/957/xRGy51g/HCg4SJyuwMxepSP9yZ65hEe+ iUqtpPXkydBmmQU3UYsPIfpehMWXhiGmlopyKTECXT/9gs9rqqcN+rTI6H0rdq4lXw djlk/UwJ4RapqYiLUdYMU83PrhBF4ItEWYz0Ev6JWJldGAKC7AkXd3/BMqBKoO9LtY nGip4qBI1sWdA== Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3924011B; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FAD1BF377 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F16080DC4 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0yJxuKCCW5Aq for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=145.40.73.55; helo=sin.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=kuba@kernel.org; receiver= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp1.osuosl.org AFFFE80D4B DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org AFFFE80D4B Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [145.40.73.55]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFFFE80D4B for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560D4CE1098; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11CD5C113CE; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:18:42 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Lifshits, Vitaly" Message-ID: <20240416081842.35995b10@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20240413092743.1548310-1-hui.wang@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1713280723; bh=OsA1Hb/7K7k+WfIl3baRz1mBWdPPkAUxFw6x9VhAQBw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jWHE2LeK6aaZlop2BB7LTRYtfpDOWAfkDkU0zBFYE+045BdnWaOCEa9J89t1beWv4 iOO2LLxYkSKFC5TR4wo/TepDtvTksuyqwxDMLQQP+a/UYZ06FrXip2WvAbi9KWjpbx NBqHdFRsEgN+kx5GR6F/ysUyhmW3Y3263e+v9gNp2CBjFXe+jqu6mplp/2C9/NNe7F T/P45AF7Zgd+cOjm+Gl83pGLVLwADuJWWUYTHOi3id84aD6DUJBAm7e3RAHT5wkGvF FQfs95v6SB6TZJGPkhgKHkT+/84rrEGBdjd6MmywkW/AK5lCtTGTxn++ZOuNtJUj7Y MZ7KaNZrBe6RA== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=jWHE2LeK Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: move force SMBUS near the end of enable_ulp function X-BeenThere: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Wired Ethernet Linux Kernel Driver Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Hui Wang , anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, dima.ruinskiy@intel.com Errors-To: intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org Sender: "Intel-wired-lan" On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:15:41 +0300 Lifshits, Vitaly wrote: > Thank you for this patch and this observation. > I think that you found a real misbehaviour in the original patch. > However, I still think that forcing SMBUS functionality shouldn't be > part of the ULP enabling flow, since they are two independent > configurations. > > I will soon submit a patch where I wrap forcing SMBUS in e1000_shutdown > with an if that checks if the FWSM_FW_VALID bit it set. Why are you submitting a patch instead of asking the author to change theirs? This is not how code reviews work. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4C3F1304A9 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713280723; cv=none; b=fmeQAnnKsXisA9pcYextsZy0ivBgq/viTyQYa9jiwuZd8RrHYLYtbjegNus5GlFsOSBvI5Vu1lm+X1S0q8BP0VBbvhfMdU9G2QEh9oFYyQ2AWrJfCZZicULvZaLHT3Rh4Ig/3DbOcXrMkUToa+pEfoErVCwWLbPa2UFKmQgb7N8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713280723; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OsA1Hb/7K7k+WfIl3baRz1mBWdPPkAUxFw6x9VhAQBw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LJ1pkLi7X+j9xd5UWQVRAs9I/1KCe7sN/yw/9sZliJF5MhggOVIsMQa6TLu1nVsL1KKnkkuEvP6bryobUHv6nKSJF5TwY4kB/fKUriFh+VdO5kTe2pf6pz/zuLkz8aHA3An3bovn2Ikk1LghInoD4klWZ2s8WjpuAzMp3nFnUeU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=jWHE2LeK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="jWHE2LeK" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11CD5C113CE; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1713280723; bh=OsA1Hb/7K7k+WfIl3baRz1mBWdPPkAUxFw6x9VhAQBw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jWHE2LeK6aaZlop2BB7LTRYtfpDOWAfkDkU0zBFYE+045BdnWaOCEa9J89t1beWv4 iOO2LLxYkSKFC5TR4wo/TepDtvTksuyqwxDMLQQP+a/UYZ06FrXip2WvAbi9KWjpbx NBqHdFRsEgN+kx5GR6F/ysUyhmW3Y3263e+v9gNp2CBjFXe+jqu6mplp/2C9/NNe7F T/P45AF7Zgd+cOjm+Gl83pGLVLwADuJWWUYTHOi3id84aD6DUJBAm7e3RAHT5wkGvF FQfs95v6SB6TZJGPkhgKHkT+/84rrEGBdjd6MmywkW/AK5lCtTGTxn++ZOuNtJUj7Y MZ7KaNZrBe6RA== Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:18:42 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Lifshits, Vitaly" Cc: Hui Wang , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000e: move force SMBUS near the end of enable_ulp function Message-ID: <20240416081842.35995b10@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20240413092743.1548310-1-hui.wang@canonical.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:15:41 +0300 Lifshits, Vitaly wrote: > Thank you for this patch and this observation. > I think that you found a real misbehaviour in the original patch. > However, I still think that forcing SMBUS functionality shouldn't be > part of the ULP enabling flow, since they are two independent > configurations. > > I will soon submit a patch where I wrap forcing SMBUS in e1000_shutdown > with an if that checks if the FWSM_FW_VALID bit it set. Why are you submitting a patch instead of asking the author to change theirs? This is not how code reviews work.