From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F01C07E95 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:32:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA0960720 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:32:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235266AbhGMJfN (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:35:13 -0400 Received: from mta-02.yadro.com ([89.207.88.252]:41098 "EHLO mta-01.yadro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234997AbhGMJfL (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:35:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-01.yadro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC8A45C91; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:32:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yadro.com; h= content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:content-type :content-type:organization:references:in-reply-to:date:date:from :from:subject:subject:message-id:received:received:received; s= mta-01; t=1626168738; x=1627983139; bh=gD0UuHaFhtXE1CjYlSQQdnWtb kTcj4oOtAaKhS8m6Bo=; b=Ur2vjL8XI1D1BEPiiveK3sXgIHaUN24tyldZ6QS+v sPh3LOD4JsHronEa+gn29eap4R+jG+ST2TLf8zNiNpwhbBg5TCRYukspNCLAKjO1 hTQMmNN3TDsyOCWIGVi8V3aaWf6LeqHF2lWVUykRn7Yitl7w3uFbcFQ/CQOm/P6T gI= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at yadro.com Received: from mta-01.yadro.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-01.yadro.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DlROguvzsDIE; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:32:18 +0300 (MSK) Received: from T-EXCH-03.corp.yadro.com (t-exch-03.corp.yadro.com [172.17.100.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-01.yadro.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D66149E06; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:32:18 +0300 (MSK) Received: from [10.199.0.247] (10.199.0.247) by T-EXCH-03.corp.yadro.com (172.17.100.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.669.32; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:32:18 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/ncsi: add dummy response handler for Intel boards From: Ivan Mikhaylov To: Joel Stanley CC: "David S . Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Samuel Mendoza-Jonas , "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" , Networking , Linux Kernel Mailing List , OpenBMC Maillist Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:42:05 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20210708122754.555846-1-i.mikhaylov@yadro.com> <20210708122754.555846-4-i.mikhaylov@yadro.com> Organization: YADRO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.199.0.247] X-ClientProxiedBy: T-EXCH-01.corp.yadro.com (172.17.10.101) To T-EXCH-03.corp.yadro.com (172.17.100.103) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 10:03 +0000, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 12:28, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote: > > > > Add the dummy response handler for Intel boards to prevent incorrect > > handling of OEM commands. > > What do you mean? When you don't have proper OEM handler for your MFR_ID, you'll get this as example: [ 39.073873] ftgmac100 1e660000.ethernet eth1: Received unrecognized OEM packet with MFR-ID (0x157) [ 39.082974] ftgmac100 1e660000.ethernet eth1: NCSI: Handler for packet type 0xd0 returned -2 > Is this to handle the response to the link up OEM command? If so, > include it in the same patch. It is not the response, it's provides same way of handling as for broadcom and mellanox manufacturers. > Can you check that the response is to the link up command and print a > warning if not? Yes, I can. As example, ncsi_oem_smaf_mlx doesn't check the response, for me it's like unidirectional commands, same for this one. Thanks.