From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] ethdev: add firmware version get
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:23:16 -0800
Message-ID: <20170109092316.6dfb971f@xeon-e3>
References: <1483531428-14481-1-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
 <1483848695-44643-1-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
 <1483848695-44643-2-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
 <20170108150513.6a57d4f0@xeon-e3>
 <F5DF4F0E3AFEF648ADC1C3C33AD4DBF16EDCA9C1@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <8c746d3c-abb2-9ec5-80d0-2315f854e5bf@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Yang, Qiming" <qiming.yang@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "Zhang, Helin"
 <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com (mail-pf0-f180.google.com
 [209.85.192.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0839F152A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  9 Jan 2017 18:23:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pf0-f180.google.com with SMTP id y143so11386477pfb.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:23:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8c746d3c-abb2-9ec5-80d0-2315f854e5bf@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 10:01:40 +0000
Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com> wrote:

> On 09/01/2017 07:16, Yang, Qiming wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]  
> [..]
> >>  void
> >> +rte_eth_dev_fw_version_get(uint8_t port_id, char *fw_version, int
> >> +fw_length) {
> >> +	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> >> +
> >> +	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_RET(port_id);
> >> +	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> >> +
> >> +	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->fw_version_get);
> >> +	(*dev->dev_ops->fw_version_get)(dev, fw_version, fw_length); }  
> >
> > Maybe dev argument to fw_version_get should be:
> >    const struct rte_eth_dev *dev
> > Qiming: do you means the argument to ops fw_version_get?
> > why should add 'const'? both two are OK, but we usually use struct rte_eth_dev *dev.  
> 
> Does seem a bit odd to me as I don't think any of the other rte_dev_ops 
> entrypoints use const. Maybe they should but if that's now policy (I've 
> been under a rock recently) probably better to do them all in a seperate 
> cleanup patchset..

DPDK is somewhat lazy about using const.