From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (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 E6010330662; Thu, 14 May 2026 09:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778750041; cv=none; b=IHD/apPdqIXjG8zGxgvFZ03C4p0CvmM963fWS9apVgD/HIkQR9gxcuoC2cKiJW7v8/rCJcBQRgPH5VyMYfMX31vz05t6ewYeJUAh38pSLmiPDY+t7yOtuBQAqoInyP3OjRe/VWIyzVmTmE00Pn20M2VruFZC13erOWhnQUf6c/0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778750041; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TnK7LZSciqBFJ/tzLk8Ak/sg9OmTxoanEmHaTcwzyd8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=g4ZrtvhS/sI2ugndrtBxjr9X+MS6Y4gOP8jBJ34Eim1b0HDIJ7kHyWY7sGaxWNDpJBZbmDqcabrh1bIsJPLreEuEEIex6Ouqmw0lXnow3fUgy0PGpLGZ70Tl1jVZiTh+kuBoi7yC1H7fXl6sMthjnA9okgRfo5y9gkqby8f2vmo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=cUMSwEFc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="cUMSwEFc" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=kh+Dd9aFN9exZFS0jLwZT6VtajU6xJFmor/kWopXSqE=; b=cUMSwEFcZsf0o3zp2TcUUlI8RQ Qou6+oB/w/ntCk3wpIbPcjzH0gGrnjBFOO3BVGivSq8EilaaZykaVmJzJwXXGk29/eHfAGq3aoYhO 1VSqUuRkKm2aesCOrZ99m2FwKgi3oyfkVp7cIGRbErUWO0RNk7dNx96gxWIXKYE44Do2FPiPNtZ1n HVoRcwvuL3tC9f6fmlVbwRecEWkHszgXAADPtkOoClS0M/MZx5/NFNUT1OeTQ9b2zBh4RdUtAsqBO f12+u4Qh0lBlTsHM9UF0L55V2clXd7MRBfQwjzUQSDN8N/1ob3448rRA4c6RdS2rfc7NKv0N0cyzM fkiXdKzA==; Received: from authenticated user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wNS8Y-003pcq-2N; Thu, 14 May 2026 09:13:46 +0000 Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 02:13:42 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Satish Kharat Cc: Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sesidhar Baddela Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 01/10] enic: verify firmware supports V2 SR-IOV at probe time Message-ID: References: <20260513-enic-sriov-v2-admin-channel-v2-v7-0-68b9f4141f4c@cisco.com> <20260513-enic-sriov-v2-admin-channel-v2-v7-1-68b9f4141f4c@cisco.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260513-enic-sriov-v2-admin-channel-v2-v7-1-68b9f4141f4c@cisco.com> X-Debian-User: leitao On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 08:15:38AM -0700, Satish Kharat wrote: > During PF probe, query the firmware get-supported-feature interface > to verify that the running firmware supports V2 SR-IOV. Firmware > version 5.3(4.72) and later report VIC_FEATURE_SRIOV via > CMD_GET_SUPP_FEATURE_VER. If the firmware does not support the > feature, set vf_type to ENIC_VF_TYPE_NONE and log a warning so the > admin knows a firmware upgrade is needed. > > The VIC_FEATURE_SRIOV enum value (4) matches the firmware ABI. A > placeholder entry (VIC_FEATURE_PTP at position 3) is added to keep > the enum in sync with firmware's feature numbering. Should you do something like the following, then? enum vic_feature_t { VIC_FEATURE_VXLAN, VIC_FEATURE_RDMA, VIC_FEATURE_VXLAN_PATCH, /* slot 3 reserved for firmware VIC_FEATURE_PTP */ VIC_FEATURE_SRIOV = 4, VIC_FEATURE_MAX, }; > + > + if (enic->vf_type != ENIC_VF_TYPE_V2) > + return; > + > + /* A successful command means firmware recognizes > + * VIC_FEATURE_SRIOV; supported_versions is available > + * for sub-feature versioning in the future. > + */ > + err = vnic_dev_get_supported_feature_ver(enic->vdev, > + VIC_FEATURE_SRIOV, > + &supported_versions, > + &a1); In this case supported_versions and a1 are written but never read, does the API need some refactor ?