Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] drivers/net/i40e: Add ethdev functions

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Remy Horton
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:32 AM
> To: Zhang, Helin; Xie, Huawei
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] drivers/net/i40e: Add ethdev functions
> 
> Comments inline.
> 
> ..Remy
> 
> On 23/02/2016 02:06, Zhang, Helin wrote:
>  >
>  >> +static inline int
>  >> +i40e_read_regs(struct i40e_hw *hw, const struct reg_info *reg,
>  >> +	       uint32_t *reg_buf)
>  >> +{
>  >> +	unsigned int i;
>  >> +
>  >> +	for (i = 0; i < reg->count; i++)
>  >> +		reg_buf[i] = I40E_READ_REG(hw,
>  >> +			reg->base_addr + i * reg->stride);
>  >> +	return reg->count;
>  >> +}
>  >  From FVL5, some registers should be read by AQ commands, otherwise
> it may fail to
>  > read without any warning.
>  > Please see my patches of which registers should be read by AQ commands.
>  > Please check i40e_osdep.h from below link. Thanks!
>  > http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10654/
> 
> Ok - will change for v2.
> 
> I noticed that other patches in the same patchset expose extra registers
> - are these new or were they simply not exposed previously?
> 
> 
>  >> +	/* Only support doing full dump */
>  >> +	if (regs->offset != 0 && 0)
>  > '&& 0' means it will never be false, right?
>  > Anything wrong here?
> 
> Oops - some dead code that slipped through.. :)
> 
> 
>  >> +		return -ENOTSUP;
>  > A message before this return to tell the uers what happened would be
> better.
> 
> Will add these into v2.
> 
> 
>  >> +static int i40e_get_eeprom_length(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>  > Why needs __rte_unused?
> 
> Good point - surprised the compiler did not complain about them, as they
> are not supposed to be there..
> 
> 
>  >> +static void i40e_set_default_mac_addr(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>  >> +				      struct ether_addr *mac_addr)
>  >> +{
>  >> +	struct i40e_hw *hw = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data-
>  >>> dev_private);
>  >> +
>  >> +	/* Flags: 0x3 updates port address */
>  >> +	i40e_aq_mac_address_write(hw, 0x3, mac_addr->addr_bytes,
>  >> NULL); }
>  > Checks are needed before writing the MAC address.
> 
> Will look into this.
> 
> 
>  >> +struct reg_info {
>  >> +	uint32_t base_addr;
>  >> +	uint32_t count;
>  >> +	uint32_t stride;
>  >> +	const char *name;
>  >> +} reg_info;
>  > I think array definition shouldn't be added into a header file,
> otherwise any .c source
>  > file which includes that header file will define that.
> 
> Since it is quite a large table I think this approach, which is also
> used in ixgbe, is the lesser of evils. i40e_ethdev.c itself is already
> pretty big, and would prefer to avoid giving a driver-specific table
> non-static visibility until it actually has to be used from other
> compilation units.

Why not to have a separate .h file, specially for registers table definition?