On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:13 PM, santosh
<santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2018 08:59 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>> I can see we enforce the driver name by putting it after the call to
>> .dev_infos_get.
>> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c#n2399
>>
>> octeontx pmd seems to try to do something about it:
>> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/drivers/net/octeontx/octeontx_ethdev.c#n622
>>
>> Not sure it does something, might be a thing to cleanup.
>>
>>
> In case, if your referring to driver_name update then
> indeed its a cleanup [1].
>
> Otherwise, I don't see any issue with v4 Or
> may be /I /misunderstood your comment.
I agree there is no fundamental issue.
dev_info->device = dev->device;
RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get);
(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get)(dev, dev_info);
dev_info->driver_name = dev->device->driver->name;
If somebody (I mean some pmd out there) has a usecase with
dev_info->device != dev->device, why not.
Thomas ?
--
David Marchand
