Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-199144-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:54:57 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Yojana Mallik <y-mallik@ti.com>
Cc: schnelle@linux.ibm.com, wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com,
	diogo.ivo@siemens.com, rdunlap@infradead.org, horms@kernel.org,
	vigneshr@ti.com, rogerq@ti.com, danishanwar@ti.com,
	pabeni@redhat.com, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
	davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srk@ti.com, rogerq@kernel.org,
	s-vadapalli@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] net: ethernet: ti: RPMsg based shared
 memory ethernet driver
Message-ID: <08696402-e0e3-4559-a02d-84cac79871ab@lunn.ch>
References: <20240531064006.1223417-1-y-mallik@ti.com>
 <20240531064006.1223417-2-y-mallik@ti.com>
 <389e1f57-1666-4298-a970-74f730740e4c@lunn.ch>
 <319616d8-533e-48c6-b97e-6285d284ac9e@ti.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <319616d8-533e-48c6-b97e-6285d284ac9e@ti.com>

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 02:26:06PM +0530, Yojana Mallik wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 6/2/24 21:51, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> +struct request_message {
> >> +	u32 type; /* Request Type */
> >> +	u32 id;	  /* Request ID */
> >> +} __packed;
> >> +
> >> +struct response_message {
> >> +	u32 type;	/* Response Type */
> >> +	u32 id;		/* Response ID */
> >> +} __packed;
> >> +
> >> +struct notify_message {
> >> +	u32 type;	/* Notify Type */
> >> +	u32 id;		/* Notify ID */
> >> +} __packed;
> > 
> > These are basically identical.
> > 
> 
> The first patch introduces only the RPMsg-based driver.
> The RPMsg driver is registered as a network device in the second patch.
> struct icve_mac_addr mac_addr is added as a member to
> struct request_message in the second patch. Similarly struct icve_shm shm_info
> is added as a member to struct response_message in the second patch. From
> second patch onward struct request_message and struct response_message are not
> identical. These members are used for the network device driver. As this patch
> introduces only RPMsg-based ethernet driver these members were not used in this
> patch and hence not mentioned in this patch. I understand this has led to the
> confusion of the structures looking similar in this patch. Kindly suggest if I
> should add these members in this patch itself instead of introducing them in
> the next patch.

I think your first patch should add documentation of the whole
protocol. With a clear understanding of what the end goal is, it
becomes easier to understand the step by step implementation stages.

	Andrew