On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:20:43 -0800 Roman Bacik <roman.ba...@broadcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 5:12 PM Marek Behún <ka...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 16:48:33 -0800 > > Roman Bacik <roman.ba...@broadcom.com> wrote: > > > > > To be honest changing status codes coming from FW does not seem right. But > > > we will try to make the requested changes. > > > > I looked at kernel's implementation of this driver and these hwrm > > functions and they don't return STATUS_*. > > > > Marek > > Marek, > > This is quite a different driver and it was written for uboot. Hello Roman The drivers clearly have a common ancestor, there are far too many similarities. It clearly wasn't written from scratch for U-Boot. > If the > main objection is that Linux driver is different then maybe we should > use v10 as is. Currently hwrm methods return HW status and bnxt > methods return uboot error codes consistently. I will leave this to U-Boot's network subsystem maintainers. As I said, beggars cannot be choosers in U-Boot. As long as the driver does not introduce vendor specific stuff to the user API (in U-Boot command line), then I guess I'll have to be satisfied. Marek