From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shreyansh jain Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 28/28] ether: support SoC device/driver Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:15:17 +0530 Message-ID: <5784AE1D.1010707@nxp.com> References: <1462542490-15556-1-git-send-email-viktorin@rehivetech.com> <1462542490-15556-29-git-send-email-viktorin@rehivetech.com> <577397EF.2080300@nxp.com> <20160704150451.1a61fbbd@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> <577A7245.700@nxp.com> <20160704163646.45d1f0f8@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Jan Viktorin Return-path: Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02on0076.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.36.76]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658F8914 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:44:43 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20160704163646.45d1f0f8@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Jan, On Monday 04 July 2016 08:06 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:57:18 +0530 > Shreyansh jain wrote: > > [...] > >>>>> @@ -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. > > OK, thanks. That's what I am playing with right now. I've rebased on v3 of this patch. There will > be some more tests in my v2. > >> rte_driver patchset which I sent last are broken - I will publish an updated version very soon. > > I am surprised that you've changed the args to RTE_EAL_PCI_REGISTER... Are you sure about this step? > I wrote that I'll change it myself for v2 for SoC to accept name and pointer as it was originally for PCI... I have sent across a v6 of the rte_device/driver change set. Can you see if that is in-line with your expectations as well as the series [1] posted by you recently? I was making changes for vdev but for now I have ignored them as your series already includes those changes. I used your patches and based them over the v6 rte_device patchset - besides some minor conflicts, its seems to merge fine. [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-July/043645.html > > Jan > - Shreyansh