Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] testpmd: eeprom display

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 9/18/2018 9:59 AM, Gaetan Rivet wrote:
> The interactive command
> 
>   show port eeprom <id>
> 
> will dump the content of the EEPROM for the selected port.
> Dumping eeprom of all ports at once is not supported.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>

<...>

> +void
> +port_eeprom_display(portid_t port_id)
> +{
> +	struct rte_eth_dev_module_info minfo;
> +	struct rte_dev_eeprom_info einfo;
> +	char buf[1024];
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> +		return;
> +
> +	ret = rte_eth_dev_get_module_info(port_id, &minfo);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		printf("Unable to get module info: %d\n", ret);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	einfo.offset = 0;
> +	einfo.length = minfo.eeprom_len;
> +	einfo.data = buf;
> +
> +	ret = rte_eth_dev_get_module_eeprom(port_id, &einfo);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		printf("Unable to get module EEPROM: %d\n", ret);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	printf("Port %hhu EEPROM:\n", port_id);

Causing build error [1], there are various formatting used for printing port_id
[2], do we need this %hhu accuracy, I am for %u since port_id is an unsigned
value result should be same.

[1]
        printf("Port %hhu EEPROM:\n", port_id);
                     ~~~~             ^~~~~~~
                     %hu

[2]
%d, %u, %PRIu8 [wrong], %PRIu16