> -----Original Message----- > From: Vijay Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 3:43 PM > To: Xia, Chenbo <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Praveen Kumar > Jain <[email protected]>; Harpreet Singh Anand <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 02/10] vdpa/sfc: add support for device initialization > > Hi Chenbo, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Xia, Chenbo <[email protected]> > >Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 5:19 PM > >To: Vijay Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Vijay > >Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]> > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 02/10] vdpa/sfc: add support for device initialization > > > >Hi Vijay, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Vijay Srivastava <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 10:47 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected]; Xia, Chenbo <[email protected]>; > >> [email protected]; Vijay Kumar Srivastava > >> <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [PATCH v3 02/10] vdpa/sfc: add support for device > >> initialization > >> > >> From: Vijay Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]> > >> > >> Add HW initialization and vDPA device registration support. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Vijay Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > >> --- > [SNIP] > >> +sfc_vdpa_hw_init(struct sfc_vdpa_adapter *sva) { > >> + efx_bar_region_t mem_ebr; > >> + efx_nic_t *enp; > >> + int rc; > >> + > >> + sfc_vdpa_log_init(sva, "entry"); > >> + > >> + sfc_vdpa_log_init(sva, "get family"); > >> + rc = sfc_efx_family(sva->pdev, &mem_ebr, &sva->family); > >> + if (rc != 0) > >> + goto fail_family; > >> + sfc_vdpa_log_init(sva, > >> + "family is %u, membar is %u," > >> + "function control window offset is %#" PRIx64, > >> + sva->family, mem_ebr.ebr_index, > >mem_ebr.ebr_offset); > > > >If ebr_idx is int, then %u -> %d. But if it's a bar index, its type should be > >unsigned int and you should change the definition in sfc common code. > Yes. It’s BAR index. > Thanks for the catch. I agree that usage of 'unsigned int' looks better > for BAR index, however it should result in more changes in similar > places. Is it OK if we use %d here right now to be consistent with > current type and address the review note in a follow up patches > for common/sfc_efx, net/sfc and vdpa/sfc?
Sure. Ok for me. /Chenbo
