On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:22:00AM +0200, Gaetan Rivet wrote: > From: Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org> > Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com> > --- > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h > index ecf839b..5efb76e 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h > @@ -82,6 +82,24 @@ typedef int (*rte_bus_scan_t)(void); > typedef int (*rte_bus_probe_t)(void); > > /** > + * Device iterator to find a device on a bus. > + * > + * This function returns an rte_device if one of those held by the bus > + * matches the data passed as parameter. > + * > + * @param cmp > + * Comparison function. > + * > + * @param data > + * Data to compare each device against. > + * > + * @return > + * The first device matching the data, NULL if none exists. > + */ > +typedef struct rte_device * (*rte_bus_find_device_t)(rte_dev_cmp_t cmp, > + const void *data); > + > +/**
The bus find function takes a third, start, parameter. Is it worthwhile including such a parameter here, for consistency sake if nothing else? Otherwise: Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
