> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Yang, Qiming > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 11:33 AM > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Horton, Remy <remy.hor...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon > <thomas.monja...@6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add firmware information get > > Yes, in my opinion it is. And I use this name already exist in the share code > from > ND team. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:49 PM > To: Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Horton, Remy <remy.hor...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon > <thomas.monja...@6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add firmware information get > > On 1/3/2017 9:05 AM, Yang, Qiming wrote: > > Hi, Ferruh > > Please see the question below. In my opinion, etrack_id is just a name used > > to > define the ID of one NIC. > > In kernel version ethtool, it will print this ID in the line of firmware > > verison. > > I know what is etrack_id mean, but I really don't know why this named > etrack_id. > > Hi Qiming, > > I suggested the API based on fields you already used in your patch. > > So, this API is to get FW version, is etrack_id something that defines (part > of) > firmware version? > > Thanks, > ferruh > > Different HW may have different version format, so it is better to use string.
And I prefer the API definition in your v2 patch like rte_eth_dev_fwver_get(uint8_t port_id, char *fw_version, int fw_length); Thanks Jingjing
