Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] dpll: zl3073x: Implement devlink flash callback

[Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>]

Hi Jakub,

On 19. 08. 25 4:29 dop., Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:44:08 +0200 Ivan Vecera wrote:
>> +	struct zl3073x_dev *zldev = devlink_priv(devlink);
>> +	struct zl3073x_fw_component *util;
>> +	struct zl3073x_fw *zlfw;
>> +	int rc = 0;
>> +
>> +	/* Load firmware */
> 
> Please drop the comments which more or less repeat the name
> of the function called.

Will do.

>> +	zlfw = zl3073x_fw_load(zldev, params->fw->data, params->fw->size,
>> +			       extack);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(zlfw))
>> +		return PTR_ERR(zlfw);
>> +
>> +	util = zlfw->component[ZL_FW_COMPONENT_UTIL];
>> +	if (!util) {
>> +		zl3073x_devlink_flash_notify(zldev,
>> +					     "Utility is missing in firmware",
>> +					     NULL, 0, 0);
>> +		rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> I'd think -EINVAL would be more appropriate.
> If you want to be fancy maybe ENOEXEC ?

OK, will use -ENOEXEC.

>> +		goto error;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Stop normal operation during flash */
>> +	zl3073x_dev_stop(zldev);
>> +
>> +	/* Enter flashing mode */
>> +	rc = zl3073x_flash_mode_enter(zldev, util->data, util->size, extack);
>> +	if (!rc) {
>> +		/* Flash the firmware */
>> +		rc = zl3073x_fw_flash(zldev, zlfw, extack);
> 
> this error code seems to be completely ignored, no?

Yep, you are right, this should be propagated to the caller.

>> +		/* Leave flashing mode */
>> +		zl3073x_flash_mode_leave(zldev, extack);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Restart normal operation */
>> +	rc = zl3073x_dev_start(zldev, true);
>> +	if (rc)
>> +		dev_warn(zldev->dev, "Failed to re-start normal operation\n");
> 
> And also we can't really cleanly handle the failure case.
> 
> This is why I was speculating about implementing the down/up portion
> in the devlink core. Add a flag that the driver requires reload_down
> to be called before the flashing operation, and reload_up after.
> This way not only core handles some of the error handling, but also
> it can mark the device as reload_failed if things go sideways, which
> is a nicer way to surface this sort of permanent error state.

This makes sense... The question is if this should reuse existing
.reload_down and .reload_up callbacks let's say with new devlink action
DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_FW_UPDATE or rather introduce new callbacks
.flash_update_down/_up() to avoid confusions.

Thanks,
Ivan