From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ethdev: replace bus specific struct with
	generic dev
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:06:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CALwxeUtEDmhYXCgnzx-fE-O-Ee54z1sdT6MMuwC9xKfF_b2GWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180329175206.127943-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <20180330151704.183495-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <CALwxeUs+Hfhu2L=0F4U5yJLk9_5ZffvDZFcLLgdy4RtfS-GH3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <08358c50-1076-21c0-cf79-25d7a25d6255@caviumnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>,
 Allain Legacy <allain.legacy@windriver.com>,
 Tomasz Duszynski <tdu@semihalf.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: santosh <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com (mail-io0-f195.google.com
 [209.85.223.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319D51B40D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2018 11:07:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-io0-f195.google.com with SMTP id l3so21123389iog.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 02:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <08358c50-1076-21c0-cf79-25d7a25d6255@caviumnetworks.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://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 Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:13 PM, santosh
<santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2018 08:59 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>> I can see we enforce the driver name by putting it after the call to
>> .dev_infos_get.
>> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c#n2399
>>
>> octeontx pmd seems to try to do something about it:
>> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/drivers/net/octeontx/octeontx_ethdev.c#n622
>>
>> Not sure it does something, might be a thing to cleanup.
>>
>>
> In case, if your referring to driver_name update then
> indeed its a cleanup [1].
>
> Otherwise, I don't see any issue with v4 Or
> may be /I /misunderstood your comment.

I agree there is no fundamental issue.

    dev_info->device = dev->device;

    RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get);
    (*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get)(dev, dev_info);
    dev_info->driver_name = dev->device->driver->name;

If somebody (I mean some pmd out there) has a usecase with
dev_info->device != dev->device, why not.

Thomas ?


-- 
David Marchand