Re: [PATCH net-next 10/11] net: enetc: add preliminary support for i.MX95 ENETC PF

[Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com>]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 04:59:45AM +0000, Wei Fang wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 05:51:15PM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > The i.MX95 ENETC has been upgraded to revision 4.1, which is very
> > > different from the LS1028A ENETC (revision 1.0) except for the SI
> > > part. Therefore, the fsl-enetc driver is incompatible with i.MX95
> > > ENETC PF. So we developed the nxp-enetc4 driver for i.MX95 ENETC
> >             So add new nxp-enetc4 driver for i.MX95 ENETC PF with
> > major revision 4.
> >
> > > PF, and this driver will be used to support the ENETC PF with major
> > > revision 4 in the future.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.h
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.h
> > > index 97524dfa234c..7f1ea11c33a0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.h
> > > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> > >  #include <net/xdp.h>
> > >
> > >  #include "enetc_hw.h"
> > > +#include "enetc4_hw.h"
> > >
> > >  #define ENETC_SI_ALIGN	32
> > >
> > > +static inline bool is_enetc_rev1(struct enetc_si *si)
> > > +{
> > > +	return si->pdev->revision == ENETC_REV1;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool is_enetc_rev4(struct enetc_si *si)
> > > +{
> > > +	return si->pdev->revision == ENETC_REV4;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > Actually, I suggest you check features, instead of check version number.
> >
> This is mainly used to distinguish between ENETC v1 and ENETC v4 in the
> general interfaces. See enetc_ethtool.c.

Suggest use flags, such as, IS_SUPPORT_ETHTOOL.

otherwise, your check may become complex in future.

If use flags, you just change id table in future.

{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP2, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NXP2_ENETC_PF),
  .driver_data = IS_SUPPORT_ETHTOOL | .... },

Frank
>
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc4_pf.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc4_pf.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..e38ade76260b
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc4_pf.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,761 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause)
> > > +/* Copyright 2024 NXP */
> > > +#include <linux/unaligned.h>
> > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > +#include <linux/of_net.h>
> > > +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > > +#include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>
> > > +#include <linux/fsl/netc_global.h>
> >
> > sort headers.
> >
>
> Sure
>
> > > +static int enetc4_pf_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > > +			   const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > +	struct enetc_si *si;
> > > +	struct enetc_pf *pf;
> > > +	int err;
> > > +
> > > +	err = enetc_pci_probe(pdev, KBUILD_MODNAME, sizeof(*pf));
> > > +	if (err) {
> > > +		dev_err(dev, "PCIe probing failed\n");
> > > +		return err;
> >
> > use dev_err_probe()
> >
>
> Okay
>
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	/* si is the private data. */
> > > +	si = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > +	if (!si->hw.port || !si->hw.global) {
> > > +		err = -ENODEV;
> > > +		dev_err(dev, "Couldn't map PF only space!\n");
> > > +		goto err_enetc_pci_probe;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	err = enetc4_pf_struct_init(si);
> > > +	if (err)
> > > +		goto err_pf_struct_init;
> > > +
> > > +	pf = enetc_si_priv(si);
> > > +	err = enetc4_pf_init(pf);
> > > +	if (err)
> > > +		goto err_pf_init;
> > > +
> > > +	pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(dev);
> > > +	enetc_get_si_caps(si);
> > > +	err = enetc4_pf_netdev_create(si);
> > > +	if (err)
> > > +		goto err_netdev_create;
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +
> > > +err_netdev_create:
> > > +err_pf_init:
> > > +err_pf_struct_init:
> > > +err_enetc_pci_probe:
> > > +	enetc_pci_remove(pdev);
> >
> > you can use devm_add_action_or_reset() to remove these goto labels.
> >
> Subsequent patches will have corresponding processing for these labels,
> so I don't want to add too many devm_add_action_or_reset ().