From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] ethdev: add firmware version get
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 10:01:40 +0000
Message-ID: <8c746d3c-abb2-9ec5-80d0-2315f854e5bf@intel.com>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: "Yang, Qiming" <qiming.yang@intel.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB57152A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  9 Jan 2017 11:01:43 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <F5DF4F0E3AFEF648ADC1C3C33AD4DBF16EDCA9C1@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.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 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..