On 02/01/2018 10:04 AM, Desnes Augusto Nunes do Rosario wrote:
> Older versions of VIOS servers do not send the firmware level in the VPD
> buffer for the ibmvnic driver. Thus, not only the current message is mis-
> leading but the firmware version in the ethtool will be NULL. Therefore,
> this patch fixes the firmware string and its warning.
>
> Fixes: 4e6759be28e4 ("ibmvnic: Feature implementation of VPD for the ibmvnic
> driver")
>
> Signed-off-by: Desnes A. Nunes do Rosario <desn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> index b65f5f3ac034..2b3e71b63a7a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/ibmvnic.c
> @@ -3290,7 +3290,11 @@ static void handle_vpd_rsp(union ibmvnic_crq *crq,
> */
> substr = strnstr(adapter->vpd->buff, "RM", adapter->vpd->len);
> if (!substr) {
> - dev_info(dev, "No FW level provided by VPD\n");
> + dev_info(dev, "Warning - No FW level has been provided in the
> VPD buffer by the VIOS Server\n");
> + ptr = strncpy((char *)adapter->fw_version, "N/A",
Is "N/A" the right thing to report? Would something like "Unknown" or
"Unreported" be better?
> + 3 * sizeof(char));
> + if (!ptr)
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to inform that firmware version is
> unavailable to the adapter\n");
The sentence structure here seems awkward. I would probably just get rid of
this error and this one later in the function.
dev_err(dev, "Failed to isolate FW level string\n");
Instead just check and report if adapter->fw_version == NULL in the complete:
label section.
-Tyrel
> goto complete;
> }
>
