08/01/2020 14:20, Ferruh Yigit: > On 1/8/2020 1:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 08/01/2020 13:59, Ferruh Yigit: > >> But for dev_ops, instead of having another capabilities indicator, which > >> requires PMDs to keep this synchronized, I think it is better if we can > >> self > >> contain this information within dev_ops, like not implementing dev_ops > >> would > >> mean it is not supported, this way it is easier to maintain and less error > >> prone. > > > > It means the dev_ops is resetted at init if a device does not support the > > feature. > > It is against having const dev_ops. > > I didn't get your comment. > For example getting FW version, I am saying instead of keeping another piece > of > information to say if it is supported by device/driver, better to grasp this > from if the driver implemented 'fw_version_get' dev_ops or not.
I like this approach. Capabilities should be expressed by setting the function pointer or not (NULL). But a driver may support a feature for a subset of devices. If a device does not support a feature, the function pointer must be set to NULL. The only issue is having dev_ops as a const struct.
