From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add firmware information get
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 01:04:09 +0000
Message-ID: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CC31C7@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1481008582-69416-1-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
 <20053497.vNKJpYf1IB@xps13>
 <F5DF4F0E3AFEF648ADC1C3C33AD4DBF16EDC9515@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <10603884.vrshqR2O82@xps13>
 <F5DF4F0E3AFEF648ADC1C3C33AD4DBF16EDC973C@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <dd3cff72-0433-bfee-4dfa-9662025e5bee@intel.com>
 <F5DF4F0E3AFEF648ADC1C3C33AD4DBF16EDC998C@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CC2AF1@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <d7f082cb-0aa0-2648-1a17-f7e6bc236160@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Horton, Remy" <remy.horton@intel.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "Yang, Qiming"
 <qiming.yang@intel.com>
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 3F32F58CF
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  5 Jan 2017 02:04:13 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <d7f082cb-0aa0-2648-1a17-f7e6bc236160@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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>

> > Different HW may have different version format, so it is better to use =
string.
> >
> > And I prefer the API definition in your v2 patch like
> >
> > rte_eth_dev_fwver_get(uint8_t port_id, char *fw_version, int
> > fw_length);
>=20
> The problem with this is the format and content of the string is not defi=
ned, as
> you said different HW has different version format. This is no problem if=
 you will
> only print the string.
>=20
> But this is a public API, if an application wants to call this API and do=
 something
> useful according the FW version information, it will need to parse the st=
ring, and
> it will not able to parse it because format of the string is not defined.=
 By making
> API fill some defined variables, app won't need to parse them, and API ou=
tput
> won't be HW dependent.
>=20

As my understand, the firmware version is specific things to each HW. The f=
ormat
cannot be generic at all, or at least we have no standard to follow. I thin=
k
the API should not be HW dependent, but about the output, application shoul=
d know
What the string's meaning. Otherwise why we need to provide the firmware in=
fo?

Thanks
Jingjing