Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-38469-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:01:46 +0300
From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: Furong Xu <0x1207@gmail.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, 
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>, Joao Pinto <jpinto@synopsys.com>, 
	Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfr@outlook.com, rock.xu@nio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: stmmac: xgmac: fix safety error descriptions
Message-ID: <3aagjpld4v7u4cfj3lge5rg6v6ro3ehnstjz3jfculx3vdpbvd@4y3hw7v4idhp>
References: <20240123085037.939471-1-0x1207@gmail.com>
 <ii3muj3nmhuo6s5hm3g7wuiubtyzr632klrcesubtuaoyifogb@ohmunpxvdtsv>
 <20240125103454.0000312a@gmail.com>
 <c37feb621fa3f7867af8d97ffe36f577966ba3ec.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c37feb621fa3f7867af8d97ffe36f577966ba3ec.camel@redhat.com>

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-01-25 at 10:34 +0800, Furong Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:25:27 +0300
> > Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 04:50:37PM +0800, Furong Xu wrote:
> > > > Commit 56e58d6c8a56 ("net: stmmac: Implement Safety Features in
> > > > XGMAC core") prints safety error descriptions when safety error assert,
> > > > but missed some special errors, and mixed correctable errors and
> > > > uncorrectable errors together.
> > > > This patch complete the error code list and print the type of errors.  
> > > 
> > > The XGMAC ECC Safety code has likely been just copied from the DW GMAC
> > > v5 (DW QoS Eth) part. So this change is partly relevant to that code too. I
> > > can't confirm that the special errors support is relevant to the DW
> > > QoS Eth too (it likely is though), so what about splitting this patch
> > > up into two:
> > > 1. Elaborate the errors description for DW GMAC v5 and DW XGMAC.
> > > 2. Add new ECC safety errors support.
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > On the other hand if we were sure that both DW QoS Eth and XGMAC
> > > safety features implementation match the ideal solution would be to
> > > refactor out the common code into a dedicated module.
> > > 
> > > -Serge(y)
> > > 
> > 
> > Checked XGMAC Version 3.20a and DW QoS Eth Version 5.20a, the safety error
> > code definitions are not identical at all, they do have some differences,
> > about more than 20 bits of status register are different.
> > I think we should just leave them in individual implementations.
> 

> @Serge: given the above, would you still advice for splitting this
> patch into 2?

Preliminary I would still in insist on splitting up. I'll double check
the patch and the Safety feature implementations in both devices and
give more detailed response to Furong in an hour or so.

-Serge(y)

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
>