On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 09:48:12PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Maybe I should rename it like this?
> >
> > /**
> > * mucse_mbx_sync_fw_by_get_capability - Try to sync driver and fw
> > * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> > *
> > * mucse_mbx_sync_fw_by_get_capability tries to sync driver and fw
> > * by get capabitiy mbx cmd. Many retrys will do if it is failed.
> > *
> > * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure
> > **/
> > int mucse_mbx_sync_fw_by_get_capability(struct mucse_hw *hw)
> > {
> > struct hw_abilities ability = {};
> > int try_cnt = 3;
> > int err;
> > /* It is called once in probe, if failed nothing
> > * (register network) todo. Try more times to get driver
> > * and firmware in sync.
> > */
> > do {
> > err = mucse_fw_get_capability(hw, &ability);
> > if (err)
> > continue;
> > break;
> > } while (try_cnt--);
> >
> > if (!err)
> > hw->pfvfnum = le16_to_cpu(ability.pfnum) & GENMASK_U16(7, 0);
> > return err;
> > }
>
> Why so much resistance to a NOP or firmware version, something which
> is not that important? Why do you want to combine getting sync and
> getting the capabilities?
>
But firmware not offer a NOP command.
(https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/8989E7A85A9468B0+20250825013053.GA2006401@nic-Precision-5820-Tower/)
I will rename it like 'mucse_mbx_sync_fw', and rename opcode
'GET_PHY_ABILITY = 0x0601' to 'SYNC_FW = 0x0601'.
> > fw reduce working frequency to save power if no driver is probed to this
> > chip. And fw change frequency to normal after recieve insmod mbx cmd.
>
> So why is this called ifinsmod? Why not power save? If you had called
> this power save, i would not of questioned what this does, it is
> pretty obvious, and other drivers probably have something
> similar. Some drivers probably have something like open/close, which
> do similar things. Again, i would not of asked. By not following what
> other drivers are doing, you just cause problems for everybody.
Sorry for it.
>
> So please give this a new name. Not just the function, but also the
> name of the firmware op and everything else to do with this. The
> firmware does not care what the driver calls it, all it sees is a
> binary message format, no names.
>
> Please also go through your driver and look at all the other names. Do
> they match what other drivers use. If not, you might want to rename
> them, in order to get your code merged with a lot less back and forth
> with reviewers.
>
I see, I will check all names.
> Andrew
>
Thanks for you feedback.
