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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 02F64C021AA for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:32:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=+x+EaGcFloDpw0PN2mNyGlDOAS7KxkJW3uvqoSqKDms=; b=oOxiRDqBn9fdwEhg9hpChzIK36 f7wEHDItXElgmQtqoqGdowNheZqKw608ha8qKcCUuhpkrFP8lcIRZmwFaaYlixntn6sccTxxTZqWi DoMr9aLL5x50gHl0gKC+ZYR1Kzf8KgtvOxPqMSdWkB0msQZk4YVqQCEfnxgpTDpfwwrN6MxF6TDVp Hz4R8JMn5or8TIuLwrqEuUComIQq9tOeKfFGYidNNjEkaaaHtaYKbqzgos/GthJRbKRt7BNWCl1U1 LpeIl7bC4Et8ULPiQ/hvH5vRbXKrBpq2+FBP4b6mcURBT/38cW138JVFzTam/LzMLPyl/vvbE9ENh EM6FJ3Wg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tlT8G-00000005eso-3yt8; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:31:56 +0000 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.8]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tlT6l-00000005eY0-2osM for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:30:25 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1740144624; x=1771680624; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yrgPSzS1iVpcnrrmsNx/lFzIbzwcOZjCNokDJvcWQ3s=; b=CIf3ZSMX1nmKSHmNXl96Aea/7otTl25rRQTxYIZPQ8fRomVnz4fgX+/P p2gB3HhZkqx7Rf5pd4rLkQbFROj4pklqBhMuBxW1m24EyZZ/ilNZSnbsO VVXF1FeHCPfMfUQdh+VmbgNrr8ULsnxJvIvgvzy8nedU0J8oqkJ8wWCgq aDVulbrDV7qdl/kJywiwOhBy/z42dXOZWKnqVgaWoqAz9Y0UVoan5MuzA RYZmQlJxsj5qjHO0JCXDrYi7py03MoVREqD2BK9OeSYmvX2z/PWFAd9uC p1ziHL/b4KiLavA5wBfR3coae88WGBDI+KX2nT8cah0XERpBBcZyBWhde g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: uoahPD9aQ9mw081NEMxJxA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: jcvmdVlWTdyxDjd9VDd8sg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11351"; a="58510794" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,304,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="58510794" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2025 05:30:22 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Yyg/CP+UTXO0VBzS4RNfow== X-CSE-MsgGUID: k5Pn0+0ERjyzbmGZjjCwkQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,224,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="120614996" Received: from mohdfai2-mobl.gar.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.247.60.175]) ([10.247.60.175]) by orviesa005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2025 05:30:11 -0800 Message-ID: <3fbe3955-48b8-449d-93ff-2699a7efcd8d@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:30:09 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v5 1/9] net: ethtool: mm: extract stmmac verification logic into common library To: Vladimir Oltean , Furong Xu <0x1207@gmail.com> Cc: Tony Nguyen , Przemek Kitszel , Andrew Lunn , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , Simon Horman , Russell King , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Russell King , Serge Semin , Xiaolei Wang , Suraj Jaiswal , Kory Maincent , Gal Pressman , Jesper Nilsson , Andrew Halaney , Choong Yong Liang , Kunihiko Hayashi , Vinicius Costa Gomes , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org References: <20250220025349.3007793-1-faizal.abdul.rahim@linux.intel.com> <20250220025349.3007793-2-faizal.abdul.rahim@linux.intel.com> <20250221174249.000000cc@gmail.com> <20250221095651.npjpkoy2y6nehusy@skbuf> <20250221182409.00006fd1@gmail.com> <20250221104333.6s7nvn2wwco3axr3@skbuf> Content-Language: en-US From: "Abdul Rahim, Faizal" In-Reply-To: <20250221104333.6s7nvn2wwco3axr3@skbuf> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250221_053023_718610_6F0205DC X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.02 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 21/2/2025 6:43 pm, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:24:09PM +0800, Furong Xu wrote: >> Your fix is better when link is up/down, so I vote verify_enabled. > > Hmmm... I thought this was a bug in stmmac that was carried over to > ethtool_mmsv, but it looks like it isn't. > > In fact, looking at the original refactoring patch I had attached in > this email: > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241217002254.lyakuia32jbnva46@skbuf/ > > these 2 lines in ethtool_mmsv_link_state_handle() didn't exist at all. > > } else { >>>>> mmsv->status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_INITIAL; >>>>> mmsv->verify_retries = ETHTOOL_MM_MAX_VERIFY_RETRIES; > > /* No link or pMAC not enabled */ > ethtool_mmsv_configure_pmac(mmsv, false); > ethtool_mmsv_configure_tx(mmsv, false); > } > > Faizal, could you remind me why they were added? I don't see this > explained in change logs. > Hi Vladimir, Yeah, it wasn’t there originally. I added that change because it failed the link down/link up test. After a successful verification, if the link partner goes down, the status still shows ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED, which isn’t correct—so that’s why I added it. Sorry for not mentioning it earlier. I assumed you’d check the delta between the original patch and the upstream one, my bad, should have mentioned this logic change. Should I update it to the latest suggestion?