On 2025/1/4 3:22, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 23:04:35 +0800
> "WanRenyong" <wa...@yunsilicon.com> wrote:
>
>> +
>> +static int
>> +xsc_ethdev_infos_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_dev_info *info)
>> +{
>> + struct xsc_ethdev_priv *priv = TO_XSC_ETHDEV_PRIV(dev);
>> +
>> + info->min_rx_bufsize = 64;
>> + info->max_rx_pktlen = 65536;
>> + info->max_lro_pkt_size = 0;
>> + info->max_rx_queues = 256;
>> + info->max_tx_queues = 1024;
>> + info->rx_desc_lim.nb_max = 4096;
>> + info->rx_desc_lim.nb_min = 16;
>> + info->tx_desc_lim.nb_max = 8192;
>> + info->tx_desc_lim.nb_min = 128;
>> +
>> + info->rx_queue_offload_capa = xsc_get_rx_queue_offloads(dev);
>> + info->rx_offload_capa = info->rx_queue_offload_capa;
>> + info->tx_offload_capa = xsc_get_tx_port_offloads(dev);
>> +
>> + info->if_index = priv->ifindex;
>> + info->speed_capa = priv->xdev->link_speed_capa;
>> + info->hash_key_size = XSC_RSS_HASH_KEY_LEN;
>> + info->tx_desc_lim.nb_seg_max = 8;
>> + info->tx_desc_lim.nb_mtu_seg_max = 8;
>> + info->switch_info.name = dev->data->name;
>> + info->switch_info.port_id = priv->representor_id;
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
> Note: that driver probably won't be at all functional without info_get
> but as long as each patch builds, it doesn't matter to me what order the
> patchset is in. Too hard to get a working driver at each step.
Agree with you. When I made the patches, I had refered the the
suggestion of Adding a new driver in DPDK Contributor's guidelines, the
device info is recommanded to be placed later position.
Altering the orde of the patchs is a bit of a hassle, so if it's not
unacceptable, I am going to leave it as is.
--
Thanks,
WanRenyong
