26/02/2024 04:07, Jie Hai:
> This patch adds "filter" and "names" fields to "rte_dev_reg_info"
> structure. Names of registers in data fields can be reported and
> the registers can be filtered by their names.
>
> The new API rte_eth_dev_get_reg_info_ext() is added to support
> reporting names and filtering by names. And the original API
> rte_eth_dev_get_reg_info() does not use the name and filter fields.
> A local variable is used in rte_eth_dev_get_reg_info for
> compatibility. If the drivers does not report the names, set them
> to "offset_XXX".
Isn't it possible to implement filtering in the original function?
What would it break?
> @@ -20,6 +25,12 @@ struct rte_dev_reg_info {
> uint32_t length; /**< Number of registers to fetch */
> uint32_t width; /**< Size of device register */
> uint32_t version; /**< Device version */
> + /**
> + * Filter for target subset of registers.
> + * This field could affects register selection for data/length/names.
> + */
> + const char *filter;
> + struct rte_eth_reg_name *names; /**< Registers name saver */
> };
I suppose this is an ABI break?
Confirmed: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2024-February/587314.html
