On 2/8/23 15:24, Lucero Palau, Alejandro wrote:
> On 2/8/23 14:38, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 03:25:13PM CET, alejandro.lucero-palau@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@xxxxxxx>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>> +static int efx_devlink_info_get(struct devlink *devlink,
>>> + struct devlink_info_req *req,
>>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>> +{
>>> + struct efx_devlink *devlink_private = devlink_priv(devlink);
>>> + struct efx_nic *efx = devlink_private->efx;
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + /* Several different MCDI commands are used. We report first error
>>> + * through extack along with total number of errors. Specific error
>>> + * information via system messages.
>> I think you forgot to remove this comment.
>>
>> With this nit fixed, free free to add:
>> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
> I'll do.
>
> Thanks
Just wondering if this single nit deserves a v7 or better to delay it as
another patch.
We got another patchset for ef100 ready to be sent and we would prefer
to not delay this one more than needed.
>>> + */
>>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_board_cfg(efx, req);
>>> + if (rc) {
>>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Getting board info failed");
>>> + return rc;
>>> + }
>>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_stored_versions(efx, req);
>>> + if (rc) {
>>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Getting stored versions failed");
>>> + return rc;
>>> + }
>>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_running_versions(efx, req);
>>> + if (rc) {
>>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Getting running versions failed");
>>> + return rc;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>> [..]
>>
