Re: [PATCH net-next v9 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx_fw support

[Yibo Dong <dong100@mucse.com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 09:48:12PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Maybe I should rename it like this?
> > 
> > /**
> >  * mucse_mbx_sync_fw_by_get_capability - Try to sync driver and fw
> >  * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> >  *
> >  * mucse_mbx_sync_fw_by_get_capability tries to sync driver and fw
> >  * by get capabitiy mbx cmd. Many retrys will do if it is failed.
> >  *
> >  * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure
> >  **/
> > int mucse_mbx_sync_fw_by_get_capability(struct mucse_hw *hw)
> > {
> > 	struct hw_abilities ability = {};
> > 	int try_cnt = 3;
> > 	int err;
> > 	/* It is called once in probe, if failed nothing
> > 	 * (register network) todo. Try more times to get driver
> > 	 * and firmware in sync.
> > 	 */
> > 	do {
> > 		err = mucse_fw_get_capability(hw, &ability);
> > 		if (err)
> > 			continue;
> > 		break;
> > 	} while (try_cnt--);
> > 
> > 	if (!err)
> > 		hw->pfvfnum = le16_to_cpu(ability.pfnum) & GENMASK_U16(7, 0);
> > 	return err;
> > }
> 
> Why so much resistance to a NOP or firmware version, something which
> is not that important? Why do you want to combine getting sync and
> getting the capabilities?
> 

But firmware not offer a NOP command.
(https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/8989E7A85A9468B0+20250825013053.GA2006401@nic-Precision-5820-Tower/) 

I will rename it like 'mucse_mbx_sync_fw', and rename opcode
'GET_PHY_ABILITY = 0x0601' to 'SYNC_FW = 0x0601'.

> > fw reduce working frequency to save power if no driver is probed to this
> > chip. And fw change frequency to normal after recieve insmod mbx cmd.
> 
> So why is this called ifinsmod? Why not power save? If you had called
> this power save, i would not of questioned what this does, it is
> pretty obvious, and other drivers probably have something
> similar. Some drivers probably have something like open/close, which
> do similar things. Again, i would not of asked. By not following what
> other drivers are doing, you just cause problems for everybody.

Sorry for it.

> 
> So please give this a new name. Not just the function, but also the
> name of the firmware op and everything else to do with this. The
> firmware does not care what the driver calls it, all it sees is a
> binary message format, no names.
> 
> Please also go through your driver and look at all the other names. Do
> they match what other drivers use. If not, you might want to rename
> them, in order to get your code merged with a lot less back and forth
> with reviewers.
> 

I see, I will check all names.

> 	Andrew
> 

Thanks for you feedback.