On Monday 04 July 2016 08:06 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:57:18 +0530 > Shreyansh jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote: > > [...] > >>>>> @@ -1431,7 +1524,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint8_t port_id, struct >>>>> rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) >>>>> >>>>> RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get); >>>>> (*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get)(dev, dev_info); >>>>> - dev_info->pci_dev = dev->pci_dev; >>>>> + dev_info->soc_dev = dev->soc_dev; >>>> >>>> I think both the members, pci_dev and soc_dev, should be updated by this >>>> call. >>>> Is there some specific reason why soc_dev is the only one which is getting >>>> updated? >>> >>> Yes, looks like a mistake. Thanks! And sorry for delayed reply. >> >> No problems - thanks for confirmation. >> I have gone through almost complete series and as and when you rebase it, it >> would have my ACK. > > OK, thanks. That's what I am playing with right now. I've rebased on v3 of > this patch. There will > be some more tests in my v2. > >> rte_driver patchset which I sent last are broken - I will publish an updated >> version very soon. > > I am surprised that you've changed the args to RTE_EAL_PCI_REGISTER... Are > you sure about this step? > I wrote that I'll change it myself for v2 for SoC to accept name and pointer > as it was originally for PCI...
Really? Then probably I understood it wrong. I don't have any issues with the first one as well but just for slightly cleaner approach I thought of going with your suggest (or, suggestion as understood by me). Anyways the patch is broken and doesn't apply on master. I will push a new version (with revert EAL_PCI_REGISTER arguments) within today. > > Jan > - Shreyansh
