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

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

On 9/21/2018 5:13 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 04:41:10PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> 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
> 
> You're right, no need for %hhu.
> I'd prefer myself using PRIu8 only by principle, but I think consistency
> is better, and testpmd uses %u more often.
> 
> On another note, I think this command was misnamed anyway.
> 
>> show port sfp_eeprom 0
> 
> is more correct, because we won't get the actual port EEPROM.
> I will send a v2, thanks for reading Ferruh.

Ok, thanks.