From: Nguyen, Anthony L <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:35 PM
>On 12/11/2023 1:45 AM, Jagielski, Jedrzej wrote: >> From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 11:07 AM >> >>> On 12/8/23 10:00, Jedrzej Jagielski wrote: >>>> Currently ixgbe driver is notified of overheating events >>>> via internal IXGBE_ERR_OVERTEMP error code. >>>> >>>> Change the approach to use freshly introduced is_overtemp >>>> function parameter which set when such event occurs. >>>> Add new parameter to the check_overtemp() and handle_lasi() >>>> phy ops. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jedrzej Jagielski <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> v2: change aproach to use additional function parameter to notify when >>>> overheat >>> >>> on public mailing lists its best to require links to previous versions >>> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 20 ++++---- >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c | 33 +++++++++---- >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.h | 2 +- >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_type.h | 4 +- >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_x550.c | 47 ++++++++++++------- >>>> 5 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>>> index 227415d61efc..f6200f0d1e06 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>>> @@ -2756,7 +2756,7 @@ static void ixgbe_check_overtemp_subtask(struct >>>> ixgbe_adapter *adapter) >>>> { >>>> struct ixgbe_hw *hw = &adapter->hw; >>>> u32 eicr = adapter->interrupt_event; >>>> - s32 rc; >>>> + bool overtemp; >>>> >>>> if (test_bit(__IXGBE_DOWN, &adapter->state)) >>>> return; >>>> @@ -2790,14 +2790,15 @@ static void ixgbe_check_overtemp_subtask(struct >>>> ixgbe_adapter *adapter) >>>> } >>>> >>>> /* Check if this is not due to overtemp */ >>>> - if (hw->phy.ops.check_overtemp(hw) != IXGBE_ERR_OVERTEMP) >>>> + hw->phy.ops.check_overtemp(hw, &overtemp); >>> >>> you newer (at least in the scope of this patch) check return code of >>> .check_overtemp(), so you could perhaps instead change it to return >>> bool, and just return "true if overtemp detected >> >> Generally I think it is good think to give a possibility to return error >> code, >> despite here it is not used (no possibility to handle it since called from >> void function, just return). >> All other phy ops are also s32 type, so this one is aligned with them. >> >> @Nguyen, Anthony L What do you think on that solution? > >We shouldn't carry a return value only to align with other ops. If we Sure, just thought it is standardized some way in that case. >there's no need for it, we shouldn't have it... however, aren't you >using/checking it here? actually there is no need since just overtemp indication is checked > >@@ -406,9 +407,12 @@ s32 ixgbe_reset_phy_generic(struct ixgbe_hw *hw) > if (status != 0 || hw->phy.type == ixgbe_phy_none) > return status; > >+ status = hw->phy.ops.check_overtemp(hw, &overtemp); >+ if (status) >+ return status; > >Thanks, >Tony Thanks Jedrek _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
