From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hemant Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/32] lib/ether: add rte_device in rte_eth_dev Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:00:24 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1480875447-23680-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <1480875447-23680-10-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <4ced5dc6-c2d7-a4d9-b7a1-29476efd9791@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" To: Ferruh Yigit , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0082.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.82]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5702BB9 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:30:32 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <4ced5dc6-c2d7-a4d9-b7a1-29476efd9791@intel.com> 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 12/15/2016 8:11 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 12/7/2016 6:41 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote: >> On 12/7/2016 1:18 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 12/4/2016 6:17 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal >>>> --- >>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h >>>> index 3c45a1f..6f5673f 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h >>>> @@ -1626,6 +1626,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev { >>>> eth_rx_burst_t rx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD receive function. */ >>>> eth_tx_burst_t tx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit function. */ >>>> struct rte_eth_dev_data *data; /**< Pointer to device data */ >>>> + struct rte_device *device; >>> >>> I believe this change should not be part of a PMD patchset. This change >>> is more generic than the PMD. >>> >>> Won't Shreyansh's patch already do this? >> >> I agree that this patch is not a fit for this PMD patchset, Shreyansh's >> patch is not yet doing it. He will be taking care of it next. >> >> So till Shreyansh provide the support, we need it. > > If you need it, what do you think sending this as a separate patch? And > when accepted, your driver can use it? > I will prefer to keep this patch as the first patch in my patchset. If Shreyansh's patch come on time, we can easily remove it. >> >>> >>>> const struct eth_driver *driver;/**< Driver for this device */ >>>> const struct eth_dev_ops *dev_ops; /**< Functions exported by PMD */ >>>> struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev; /**< PCI info. supplied by probing */ >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >