From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 20/22] net/atlantic: LED control DPDK and private APIs Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:54:51 +0100 Message-ID: <0b7def14-9001-65ba-f85f-61b262b8acdd@intel.com> References: <1bb197a4-2bc2-1dc6-1ca9-f57d39d5b27d@intel.com> <357d71b2-e730-9626-6fbe-b53d3d07478b@aquantia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pavel Belous To: Igor Russkikh , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AD21B617 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:55:04 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <357d71b2-e730-9626-6fbe-b53d3d07478b@aquantia.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/10/2018 2:35 PM, Igor Russkikh wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > >>> +int rte_pmd_atl_dev_led_control(int port, int control); >> >> What is the intention here, making PMD specific public API? >> If so .map file is missing but we discourage using PMD specific APIs, >> >> can't it be possible to extend exiting led related dev_ops in a generic way to >> cover your use case? > > This API was specially requested by our customer. > > I'm honestly not sure if such a functionality will be useful as a generic dev_ops. > I'm not aware of any other NIC allowing detailed led control. > > Maybe its better to drop this API from the patchset for now and resubmit > later on as a separate feature patchset. > > Is this ok with you? +1, I think better to have it as separate patch.