Re:Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] net: wwan: Fix SDX72 ping failure issue

["Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@163.com>]

+More maintainer to this second patch list.

At 2024-06-08 06:28:48, "Sergey Ryazanov" <ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello Slark,
>
>without the first patch it is close to impossible to understand this 
>one. Next time please send such tightly connected patches to both 
>mailing lists.
>
Sorry for this mistake since it's my first commit about committing code to 2
difference area: mhi and mbim. Both the maintainers are difference.
In case a new version commit would be created, I would like to ask if
should I add both side maintainers on these 2 patches ?
 
>On 07.06.2024 13:03, Slark Xiao wrote:
>> For SDX72 MBIM device, it starts data mux id from 112 instead of 0.
>> This would lead to device can't ping outside successfully.
>> Also MBIM side would report "bad packet session (112)".
>> So we add a link id default value for these SDX72 products which
>> works in MBIM mode.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Slark Xiao <slark_xiao@163.com>
>
>Since it a but fix, it needs a 'Fixes:' tag.
>
Actually, I thought it's a fix for common SDX72 product. But now I think
it should be only meet for my SDX72 MBIM product. Previous commit 
has not been applied. So there is no commit id for "Fixes".
But I think I shall include that patch in V2 version.
Please ref: 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240520070633.308913-1-slark_xiao@163.com/

>> ---
>>   drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c b/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c
>> index 3f72ae943b29..4ca5c845394b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c
>> @@ -618,7 +618,8 @@ static int mhi_mbim_probe(struct mhi_device *mhi_dev, const struct mhi_device_id
>>   	mbim->rx_queue_sz = mhi_get_free_desc_count(mhi_dev, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
>>   
>>   	/* Register wwan link ops with MHI controller representing WWAN instance */
>> -	return wwan_register_ops(&cntrl->mhi_dev->dev, &mhi_mbim_wwan_ops, mbim, 0);
>> +	return wwan_register_ops(&cntrl->mhi_dev->dev, &mhi_mbim_wwan_ops, mbim,
>> +		mhi_dev->mhi_cntrl->link_id ? mhi_dev->mhi_cntrl->link_id : 0);
>
>Is it possible to drop the ternary operator and pass the link_id directly?
>
>>   }
>>   
>>   static void mhi_mbim_remove(struct mhi_device *mhi_dev)