From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wes1-so1.wedos.net (wes1-so1.wedos.net [46.28.106.15]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B872F282 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:36:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz (pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.13.147]) by wes1-so1.wedos.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3rjqMt3VBDzBn6; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:36:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:36:46 +0200 From: Jan Viktorin To: Shreyansh jain Cc: Message-ID: <20160704163646.45d1f0f8@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <577A7245.700@nxp.com> References: <1462542490-15556-1-git-send-email-viktorin@rehivetech.com> <1462542490-15556-29-git-send-email-viktorin@rehivetech.com> <577397EF.2080300@nxp.com> <20160704150451.1a61fbbd@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> <577A7245.700@nxp.com> Organization: RehiveTech MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 28/28] ether: support SoC device/driver X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:36:42 -0000 On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:57:18 +0530 Shreyansh jain wrote: [...] > >>> @@ -1431,7 +1524,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint8_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) > >>> > >>> RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get); > >>> (*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get)(dev, dev_info); > >>> - dev_info->pci_dev = dev->pci_dev; > >>> + dev_info->soc_dev = dev->soc_dev; > >> > >> I think both the members, pci_dev and soc_dev, should be updated by this call. > >> Is there some specific reason why soc_dev is the only one which is getting updated? > > > > Yes, looks like a mistake. Thanks! And sorry for delayed reply. > > No problems - thanks for confirmation. > I have gone through almost complete series and as and when you rebase it, it would have my ACK. OK, thanks. That's what I am playing with right now. I've rebased on v3 of this patch. There will be some more tests in my v2. > rte_driver patchset which I sent last are broken - I will publish an updated version very soon. I am surprised that you've changed the args to RTE_EAL_PCI_REGISTER... Are you sure about this step? I wrote that I'll change it myself for v2 for SoC to accept name and pointer as it was originally for PCI... Jan