On 6/17/21 1:59 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> Add basic init and uninit function.
> Map device IDs and subsystem IDs to single ID for easy operation.
> Then initialize the shared code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawe...@trustnetic.com>
[snip]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ethdev.c
> index e05766752a..a355c7dc29 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ethdev.c
> @@ -53,9 +71,9 @@ eth_ngbe_dev_uninit(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> return 0;
>
> - RTE_SET_USED(eth_dev);
> + ngbe_dev_close(eth_dev);
Why is return value ignored?
>
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int
> @@ -86,6 +104,19 @@ static struct rte_pci_driver rte_ngbe_pmd = {
> .remove = eth_ngbe_pci_remove,
> };
>
> +/*
> + * Reset and stop device.
> + */
> +static int
> +ngbe_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> +{
> + PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE();
> +
> + RTE_SET_USED(dev);
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
Is it really a problem to implement close here for the
symmetry? Such asymmetry will result in failures if
I try to run, for example, testpmd on the patch.
> +}
> +
> RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PCI(net_ngbe, rte_ngbe_pmd);
> RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PCI_TABLE(net_ngbe, pci_id_ngbe_map);
> RTE_PMD_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP(net_ngbe, "* igb_uio | uio_pci_generic |
> vfio-pci");
[snip]
