+More maintainer to this second patch list. At 2024-06-08 06:28:48, "Sergey Ryazanov" <ryazanov.s.a@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hello Slark, > >without the first patch it is close to impossible to understand this >one. Next time please send such tightly connected patches to both >mailing lists. > Sorry for this mistake since it's my first commit about committing code to 2 difference area: mhi and mbim. Both the maintainers are difference. In case a new version commit would be created, I would like to ask if should I add both side maintainers on these 2 patches ? >On 07.06.2024 13:03, Slark Xiao wrote: >> For SDX72 MBIM device, it starts data mux id from 112 instead of 0. >> This would lead to device can't ping outside successfully. >> Also MBIM side would report "bad packet session (112)". >> So we add a link id default value for these SDX72 products which >> works in MBIM mode. >> >> Signed-off-by: Slark Xiao <slark_xiao@xxxxxxx> > >Since it a but fix, it needs a 'Fixes:' tag. > Actually, I thought it's a fix for common SDX72 product. But now I think it should be only meet for my SDX72 MBIM product. Previous commit has not been applied. So there is no commit id for "Fixes". But I think I shall include that patch in V2 version. Please ref: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240520070633.308913-1-slark_xiao@xxxxxxx/ >> --- >> drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c b/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c >> index 3f72ae943b29..4ca5c845394b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wwan/mhi_wwan_mbim.c >> @@ -618,7 +618,8 @@ static int mhi_mbim_probe(struct mhi_device *mhi_dev, const struct mhi_device_id >> mbim->rx_queue_sz = mhi_get_free_desc_count(mhi_dev, DMA_FROM_DEVICE); >> >> /* Register wwan link ops with MHI controller representing WWAN instance */ >> - return wwan_register_ops(&cntrl->mhi_dev->dev, &mhi_mbim_wwan_ops, mbim, 0); >> + return wwan_register_ops(&cntrl->mhi_dev->dev, &mhi_mbim_wwan_ops, mbim, >> + mhi_dev->mhi_cntrl->link_id ? mhi_dev->mhi_cntrl->link_id : 0); > >Is it possible to drop the ternary operator and pass the link_id directly? > >> } >> >> static void mhi_mbim_remove(struct mhi_device *mhi_dev)
