From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <remy.horton@intel.com>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475695A72
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:20:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2016 03:20:32 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,373,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="1034121696"
Received: from rhorton-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [163.33.228.56])
 ([163.33.228.56])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2016 03:20:31 -0700
To: dev@dpdk.org
References: <1474356637-48797-1-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
Cc: Qiming Yang <qiming.yang@intel.com>
From: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Limited
Message-ID: <feebda72-08a2-f508-3f73-9f694caf0808@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:20:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1474356637-48797-1-git-send-email-qiming.yang@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples/ethtool: enhance ethtool app in i40e
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:20:34 -0000


On 20/09/2016 08:30, Qiming Yang wrote:
> Now, run the example/ethtool, the drvinfo can not show the fireware
> information. From customer point of view, it should be better if we
> can have the same as kernel version ethtool show the bus-info and
> firmware-version. We need to add a variable in struct rte_eth_dev_info
> to get the fw version.
> I’m interested in:
> a) this approach is appropriate?
> b) would prefer a change of the API?

The approach is nice and clean, but the changes to rte_eth_dev_info are 
an ABI break.

One alternative is to add a new function (and associated driver function 
pointers) to fetch the version string, but my feeling is if one is to go 
down that road, they may as well generalise it into a driver info 
querying mini-API.

..Remy