From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA50A0A0C; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45304068C; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABB74003C for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:33:55 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1625474035; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=su8D9LWoPvfQpwd5h+SrSqE33JRJeAYOxQlIItmmQis=; b=e3+8zDtCiBncWKro28IYy9Lr6RLbl7tYBL8iNCxp7wXo4hyCcbMTxpNpKL92LAGQzW6MOv 1AmhtoWW6VODxFV7An4hyZqRzENcp3xD6YevK+L9iwUYN5fSfCuEhWrUHzcm1+enZKDyfg /CxXJtwqF4jk20A80gaXdlvc6KYsq/I= Received: from mail-ua1-f69.google.com (mail-ua1-f69.google.com [209.85.222.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-601-5H670ijrPQCg-6Ao0ibGyg-1; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 04:33:54 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5H670ijrPQCg-6Ao0ibGyg-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 44-20020a9f23af0000b029029b5b9c0118so2831511uao.23 for ; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 01:33:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=su8D9LWoPvfQpwd5h+SrSqE33JRJeAYOxQlIItmmQis=; b=mol+8gpjcrY/BLzbTACanPiI8NiJ4SgksW2ttx+59J6brEsswrmfLtldvrQkc2+v8U FFFv4LfZEQUM8bbselCa4fNwdAEjzV67n1hjOMvmpYfg/WiWNEyV86GU36WDpPKis6f5 sTVeKGo3IRKpu0RRfUCMOOJ92TszJOCjV1p3wCKZlF7GZPpQjULR4AOx5eDF39978KiJ tCQZ35znJLidb0zz7LERjd8COElkPplZNSglm/brPcfQdYw+gMbWNLAOhfvktuy7F1Pk 2atQoreZzu+WlVfPao6++fvc/+HiOZWFxowvTgk0Q+PqbQPSh9jN6Smh8yjiTQ/7R1TJ DPAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ewnI36fomdCB5F7LAIypA/VF8tPk9aK3xu8nDZ8WYn51hhE7F Orc2W17LWtj1xIu7xUeX1e0S6isMEhlxb80LcIQcWE4HchnNeanB6xdGqcv1gYSpkr3vBUw+FxM /OD4TeRWGykiM5U3uz1k= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:211a:: with SMTP id d26mr9187737ual.41.1625474033628; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 01:33:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyX8B0xyHwRZPL7AXqc8wq2yiEm/Ieuv24ucMD8hntIVv9KfyXwph4HfEILOiQ39S+9HaHV7UODFTlwOD/cWLg= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:211a:: with SMTP id d26mr9187734ual.41.1625474033474; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 01:33:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210602095836.24901-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20210629080632.30964-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20210629080632.30964-2-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:33:41 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Wang, Haiyue" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yang, Qiming" , "Zhang, Qi Z" Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] net/ice: factorize firmware loading X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 10:02 AM Wang, Haiyue wrote: > > > I'm wondering what's full name for ice firmware in F34, has any *.xz > > > postfix ? If so, the search method will also needs to be updated, since > > > we will check each file can be accessed: > > > > > > #define ICE_PKG_FILE_DEFAULT "/lib/firmware/intel/ice/ddp/ice.pkg" > > > #define ICE_PKG_FILE_UPDATES "/lib/firmware/updates/intel/ice/ddp/ice.pkg" > > > > This first patch is a preparation to have a single helper to > > select/open the firmware. > > I don't get what you mean. > > Since the pkg file has the *.xz, now the search method doesn't work. You fix > the read only. ;-) This patch fixes nothing wrt to F34. It simply prepares for the next patch, because I did not want to fix in two places with the same change. I can squash everything in a single patch if you prefer. In the end, I end up with the same question, but for the whole series: > > Is there a change in behavior with this patch? -- David Marchand