On 9/14/21 7:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 9/14/2021 5:17 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >> On 9/14/21 6:52 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 8/31/2021 5:12 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >>>> From: Viacheslav Galaktionov <viacheslav.galaktio...@oktetlabs.ru> >>>> >>>> Make it simpler to debug configurations and code related to the representor >>>> info API. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Galaktionov <viacheslav.galaktio...@oktetlabs.ru> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> >>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Moreton <amore...@xilinx.com> >>>> --- >>>> v2: >>>> - change output format to log just one line per range >>>> >>>> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 135 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c >>>> index 82253bc751..ae700f9dd1 100644 >>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c >>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c >>>> @@ -236,6 +236,10 @@ static void cmd_help_long_parsed(void *parsed_result, >>>> " Show port supported ptypes" >>>> " for a specific port\n\n" >>>> >>>> + "show port (port_id) representor info\n" >>>> + " Show supported representors" >>>> + " for a specific port\n\n" >>>> + >>> >>> What do you think extending existing "show port info #" command instead of >>> creating a new command for it? >> >> My fear with such approach is that output of the "show port >> info #" is already too long and adding representors info >> there will make it even much longer. >> > > That is fair concern, what about extend existing command with a new keyword to > just print representor info: > "show port info # representor"
Good idea, see v3. >>> Since "show port info #" is a well known command, it can simplify the usage. >>> When port is representor port it can display additional info. >>> >> >> Just to be clear: it will output information for "backer" >> (or parent) port which should be used to create representors. >>
