On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:09:49AM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Yuanhan Liu
> <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:24:25PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> >> +/**
> >> + * A structure used to access io resources for a pci device.
> >> + * rte_pci_ioport is arch, os, driver specific, and should not be used
> >> outside
> >> + * of pci ioport api.
> >> + */
> >> +struct rte_pci_ioport {
> >> + struct rte_pci_device *dev;
> >> + uint64_t offset;
> >> +};
> >
> > "offset" dosen't sound like a good name to me; espeicially when I found
> > code like below:
> >
> > reg = p->offset + offset;
> >
> > Regarding that, maybe "base" is a better name? I don't like it too much,
> > though. Any better idea?
>
> Hum, yes, base sounds better, and I have no better idea, will go with
> this unless someone else complains.
>
> > Otherwise, this patch looks good to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I will respin this patchset and if nobody is against this, I think
Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>
--yliu
> this patchset should be pulled quickly because other patches depend on
> it.
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
