Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] ethdev: rename parameter in API to get FEC

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

On 5/4/2023 8:13 AM, Denis Pryazhennikov wrote:
> I think my patch isn't correct.
> I would say that
> - fec_capa is a set of bits produced by 'RTE_ETH_FEC_MODE_TO_CAPA()';
> - fec_mode is an element of 'enum rte_eth_fec_mode'.
> 
> Based on this definition, replacing 'fec_capa' with 'fec_mode' should
> involve changing the parameter type.
> Probably I shouldn't change the name, but I should add a more detailed
> comment.
> 
>> Independent from being single FEC mode or not, I think both
> 'rte_eth_fec_get()' & 'rte_eth_fec_set()' should get 'fec_mode' as
> param, what do you think?
> 
> Andrew Rybchenko asked to replace 'mode' with 'fec_capa' for
> 'rte_eth_fec_set()' in
> https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/aa745bd1-a564-fa8c-c77b-2d99c97690aa@solarflare.com/
> I don't think we need to change it for rte_eth_fec_set().
> 

OK

> On 5/2/23 7:02 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 11:27 AM, Denis Pryazhennikov wrote:
>>> Only one valid FEC mode can be get by rte_eth_fec_get().
>>> The previous name implied that more than one FEC mode
>>> can be obtained.
>> +1 and patch looks good.
>>
>> But isn't this valid for 'rte_eth_fec_set()', it gets 'fec_mode'. FEC
>> capability has its own type "struct rte_eth_fec_capa".
>>
>> Independent from being single FEC mode or not, I think both
>> 'rte_eth_fec_get()' & 'rte_eth_fec_set()' should get 'fec_mode' as
>> param, what do you think?
>>
>>> Documentation was updated accordingly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Denis Pryazhennikov <denis.pryazhennikov@arknetworks.am>
>>> Acked-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@arknetworks.am>
>>> Acked-by: Viacheslav Galaktionov <viacheslav.galaktionov@arknetworks.am>
>> <...>
>>