From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] example/ethtool: add bus info and fw
	version get
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:47:12 +0100
Message-ID: <6590239.9s5rXc1lKr@xps13>
References: <1479375779-46629-2-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
 <1578263.GeZ0IiYehl@xps13> <a191e031-c2fd-2a18-ea02-af5fff9668ec@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6372A10D79
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:47:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id g23so9575854wme.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 06:47:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a191e031-c2fd-2a18-ea02-af5fff9668ec@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>

2016-12-22 14:36, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 12/22/2016 11:07 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > I think it is OK to add a new dev_ops and a new API function for firmware
> > query. Generally speaking, it is a good thing to avoid putting all
> > informations in the same structure (e.g. rte_eth_dev_info). 
> 
> OK.
> 
> > However, there
> > is a balance to find. Could we plan to add more info to this new query?
> > Instead of
> > 	rte_eth_dev_fwver_get(uint8_t port_id, char *fw_version, int fw_length)
[...]
> > could it fill a struct?
> > 	rte_eth_dev_fw_info_get(uint8_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_fw_info *fw_info)
> 
> I believe this is better. But the problem we are having with this usage
> is: ABI breakage.
> 
> Since this struct will be a public structure, in the future if we want
> to add a new field to the struct, it will break the ABI, and just this
> change will cause a new version for whole ethdev library!
> 
> When all required fields received via arguments, one by one, instead of
> struct, at least ABI versioning can be done on the API when new field
> added, and can be possible to escape from ABI breakage. But this will be
> ugly when number of arguments increased.
> 
> Or any other opinion on how to define API to reduce ABI breakage?

You're right.
But I don't think we should have a function per data. Just because it would
be ugly :)
I hope the ABI could become stable with time.