From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Kicinski Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] nfp: wait more carefully for card init Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:53:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20170913185308.7c64275e@cakuba.netronome.com> References: <20170913155131.18090-1-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <20170913.093902.570914704132982694.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]:46970 "EHLO mail-pg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751121AbdIMQxP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:53:15 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id i130so1445970pgc.3 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:53:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170913.093902.570914704132982694.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > From: Jakub Kicinski > Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:51:28 -0700 >=20 > > The first patch is a small fix for flower offload, we need a whitelist > > of supported matches, otherwise the unsupported ones will be ignored. > >=20 > > The second and the third patch are adding wait/polling to the probe pat= h. > > We had reports of driver failing probe because it couldn't find the=20 > > control process (NSP) on the card. Turns out the NSP will only announce > > its existence after it's fully initialized. Until now we assumed it=20 > > will be reachable, just not processing commands (hence we wait for > > a NOOP command to execute successfully). =20 >=20 > Please build test your changes and look at what the compiler says: >=20 > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_main.c: In function =E2=80=98nfp_f= w_unload=E2=80=99: > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_main.c:395:10: warning: =E2=80=98r= eturn=E2=80=99 with a value, in function returning void > return err; > ^~~ > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_main.c:388:13: note: declared here > static void nfp_fw_unload(struct nfp_pf *pf) > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry about that!