From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/29] net/cxgbe: use eal I/O device
 memory read/write API
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:07:16 +0530
Message-ID: <20170113083715.GC19741@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1482832175-27199-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <1484212646-10338-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <1484212646-10338-19-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <e6066a9a-bda3-a523-cb65-28cef5287a40@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 <jianbo.liu@linaro.org>, <viktorin@rehivetech.com>,
 <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>, Rahul Lakkireddy
 <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-sn1nam01on0065.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D77E2BF3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:37:43 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e6066a9a-bda3-a523-cb65-28cef5287a40@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 Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 07:12:33PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/12/2017 9:17 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> <...>
> 
> >  
> > -#define CXGBE_PCI_REG_WRITE(reg, value) ({ \
> > -	CXGBE_PCI_REG((reg)) = (value); })
> > +#define CXGBE_PCI_REG_WRITE(reg, value) rte_write32((value), (reg))
> 
> Almost all (if not all) PMD write macros' argument order is like
> write(address, value), but rte_writeX has rte_writex(value, address)
> 
> What is the common usage for this kind of function?

Arguments order has been taken from Linux kernel readl/writel syntax.

> What do you think reverting argument order?

OMG :-). If it worth it then we can consider. IMHO, let it be in kernel
syntax so that it will easy to port drivers from Linux kernel.

> 
> As a similar example, dpdk ether_addr_copy(src, dst) function argument
> order is revers according common usage, and keeps confusing people.
> 
> <...>
>