> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ye, Xiaolong <xiaolong...@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:38
> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
> <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] net/iavf: stop the PCI probe in DCF mode
>
> On 03/10, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ye, Xiaolong <xiaolong...@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 23:38
> >> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
> >> <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Xing,
> >> Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] net/iavf: stop the PCI probe in DCF mode
> >>
> >> On 03/09, Haiyue Wang wrote:
> >> >A new DCF PMD will be introduced, which runs on Intel VF hardware, and
> >> >it is a pure software design to control the advance functionality (such
> >> >as switch, ACL) for rest of the VFs.
> >> >
> >> >So if the DCF (Device Config Function) mode is specified by the devarg
> >> >'cap=dcf', then it will stop the PCI probe in the iavf PMD.
> >> >
> >> >Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
> >> >---
> >> > drivers/net/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> >diff --git a/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> >> >b/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> >> >index 34913f9c4..8ff26c0e7 100644
> >> >--- a/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> >> >+++ b/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_ethdev.c
> >> >@@ -1416,9 +1416,49 @@ iavf_dev_uninit(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> >> > return 0;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >+static int
> >> >+handle_dcf_arg(__rte_unused const char *key, const char *value,
> >> >+ __rte_unused void *arg)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ bool *dcf = arg;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (arg == NULL || value == NULL)
> >> >+ return -EINVAL;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (strcmp(value, "dcf") == 0)
> >> >+ *dcf = true;
> >> >+ else
> >> >+ *dcf = false;
> >> >+
> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >+}
> >> >+
> >> >+static bool
> >> >+check_cap_dcf_enable(struct rte_devargs *devargs)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ struct rte_kvargs *kvlist;
> >> >+ bool enable = false;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (devargs == NULL)
> >> >+ return false;
> >> >+
> >> >+ kvlist = rte_kvargs_parse(devargs->args, NULL);
> >> >+ if (kvlist == NULL)
> >> >+ return false;
> >> >+
> >> >+ rte_kvargs_process(kvlist, "cap", handle_dcf_arg, &enable);
> >>
> >> Need error handling for failure case.
> >>
> >
> >We just need the 'cap=dcf' to check whether it is true, by default
> >'enable=false' can handle all the cases. ;-)
> >
>
> Yes, from function point of view, this could work. But it is still good
> practice
> to check the return value of the function.
>
Make sense, will handle it in v2.
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
