Re: [PATCH] octeontx2-af: Send Link events one by one

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 01:02:35PM +0000, Subbaraya Sundeep wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> On 2025-05-12 at 11:45:43, Subbaraya Sundeep (sbhatta@marvell.com) wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> > 
> > On 2025-05-12 at 10:09:54, Simon Horman (horms@kernel.org) wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:46:23PM +0530, Subbaraya Sundeep wrote:
> > > > Send link events one after another otherwise new message
> > > > is overwriting the message which is being processed by PF.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: a88e0f936ba9 ("octeontx2: Detect the mbox up or down message via register")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@marvell.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_cgx.c | 2 ++
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_cgx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_cgx.c
> > > > index 992fa0b..ebb56eb 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_cgx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_cgx.c
> > > > @@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ static void cgx_notify_pfs(struct cgx_link_event *event, struct rvu *rvu)
> > > >  
> > > >  		otx2_mbox_msg_send_up(&rvu->afpf_wq_info.mbox_up, pfid);
> > > 
> > > Hi Subbaraya,
> > > 
> > > Are there other callers of otx2_mbox_msg_send_up()
> > > which also need this logic? If so, perhaps a helper is useful.
> > > If not, could you clarify why?
> > > 
> > UP messages are async notifications where we just send and forget.
> > There are other callers as I said we just send and forget everywhere
> > in the driver. Only this callsite has been modified because we have
> > seen an issue on customer setup where bunch of link events are queued
> > for a same device at one point of time.

Thanks for the clarification.

> > > >  
> > > > +		otx2_mbox_wait_for_rsp(&rvu->afpf_wq_info.mbox_up, pfid);
> > > 
> > > This can return an error. Which is checked in otx2_sync_mbox_up_msg().
> > > Does it make sense to do so here too?
> > > 
> > Yes it makes sense to use otx2_sync_mbox_up_msg here. I will use it
> > here.
> > 
> I will leave it as otx2_mbox_wait_for_rsp. Since otx2_sync_mbox_up_msg
> is in nic driver and we do not include nic files in AF driver. Since
> this is a void function will print an error if otx2_mbox_wait_for_rsp
> returns error.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my previous email.

I was asking if it makes sense to check the return value of
otx2_mbox_wait_for_rsp() in this patch.

...