Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:39:00 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To:     Veerasenareddy Burru <vburru@marvell.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        aayarekar@marvell.com, sedara@marvell.com, sburla@marvell.com,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 6/8] octeon_ep: support asynchronous
 notifications
Message-ID: <20230323103900.GC36557@unreal>
References: <20230322091958.13103-1-vburru@marvell.com>
 <20230322091958.13103-7-vburru@marvell.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230322091958.13103-7-vburru@marvell.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 02:19:55AM -0700, Veerasenareddy Burru wrote:
> Add asynchronous notification support to the control mailbox.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Veerasenareddy Burru <vburru@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Ayarekar <aayarekar@marvell.com>
> ---
> v3 -> v4:
>  * 0005-xxx.patch in v3 is 0006-xxx.patch in v4.
>  * addressed review comments
>    https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+0J94sowllCe5Gs@boxer/
>    - fixed rct violation.
>    - process_mbox_notify() now returns void.
> 
> v2 -> v3:
>  * no change
> 
> v1 -> v2:
>  * no change
> 
>  .../marvell/octeon_ep/octep_ctrl_net.c        | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_ctrl_net.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_ctrl_net.c
> index cef4bc3b1ec0..465eef2824e3 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_ctrl_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep/octep_ctrl_net.c
> @@ -271,6 +271,33 @@ static void process_mbox_resp(struct octep_device *oct,
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static int process_mbox_notify(struct octep_device *oct,
> +			       struct octep_ctrl_mbox_msg *msg)
> +{
> +	struct net_device *netdev = oct->netdev;
> +	struct octep_ctrl_net_f2h_req *req;
> +
> +	req = (struct octep_ctrl_net_f2h_req *)msg->sg_list[0].msg;
> +	switch (req->hdr.s.cmd) {
> +	case OCTEP_CTRL_NET_F2H_CMD_LINK_STATUS:
> +		if (netif_running(netdev)) {
> +			if (req->link.state) {
> +				dev_info(&oct->pdev->dev, "netif_carrier_on\n");
> +				netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> +			} else {
> +				dev_info(&oct->pdev->dev, "netif_carrier_off\n");
> +				netif_carrier_off(netdev);
> +			}

Shouldn't netdev changes be protected by some lock?
Is is safe to get event from FW and process it as is?

Thanks