[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 28/28] ether: support SoC device/driver

[Shreyansh jain]

On Monday 04 July 2016 06:34 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:12:07 +0530
> Shreyansh jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> On Friday 06 May 2016 07:18 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Viktorin <viktorin at rehivetech.com>
>>> ---
>>>  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h |  31 +++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 157 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> index 4af2e5f..9259c2c 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -320,6 +320,99 @@ rte_eth_dev_pci_remove(struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev)
>>>  }
>>>    
>> [...]
>>> +int
>>>  rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(uint8_t port_id)
>>>  {
>>>  	if (port_id >= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS ||
>>> @@ -1431,7 +1524,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint8_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info)
>>>  
>>>  	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get);
>>>  	(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get)(dev, dev_info);
>>> -	dev_info->pci_dev = dev->pci_dev;
>>> +	dev_info->soc_dev = dev->soc_dev;  
>>
>> I think both the members, pci_dev and soc_dev, should be updated by this call.
>> Is there some specific reason why soc_dev is the only one which is getting updated?
> 
> Yes, looks like a mistake. Thanks! And sorry for delayed reply.

No problems - thanks for confirmation.
I have gone through almost complete series and as and when you rebase it, it would have my ACK.
rte_driver patchset which I sent last are broken - I will publish an updated version very soon.

> 
> Jan
> 
>>
>>>  	dev_info->driver_name = dev->data->drv_name;
>>>  }
>>>    
>> [...]
>>
>> -
>> Shreyansh
>>
> 
> 
> 

-
Shreyansh