On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 2:25 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 1:48 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 16:56:24 +0800 > > Jiawen Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > @@ -28,6 +29,9 @@ void txgbe_init_ops_aml40(struct txgbe_hw *hw) > > > mac->init_mac_link_ops = txgbe_init_mac_link_ops_aml40; > > > mac->get_link_capabilities = txgbe_get_link_capabilities_aml40; > > > mac->check_link = txgbe_check_mac_link_aml40; > > > + > > > + /* MAILBOX */ > > > + mbx->host_interface_command = txgbe_host_interface_command_aml; > > > } > > > > Maybe that comment means something to you, but it seems like something > > the next maintainer would not know what it means. Could you explain it more? > > For different devices, the mailbox flow between software and firmware is > different. There are several mailbox command in the txgbe driver, but only > txgbe_hic_sr_read() was changed to use the new flow in commit > 6a139ade82e7 ("net/txgbe: add new SW-FW mailbox interface"). Because > this function invoke the txgbe_hic_unlocked() directly without SW-FW > semaphore, I guess. > > It lead to other mailbox commands timeout for Amber-Lite devices, which > is required to use the new flow. So this patch fills in the missing part. > > For the sake of code tidy, txgbe_hic_sr_read() should change to use the > locked function txgbe_host_interface_command(), and this function could > be change to pointer in struct txgbe_mbx_info for different devices.
Hi Stephen Hemminger, Does this explanation is sufficient? Should I send v2 patch with these logs?
