> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Remy Horton > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:32 AM > To: Zhang, Helin; Xie, Huawei > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] drivers/net/i40e: Add ethdev functions > > Comments inline. > > ..Remy > > On 23/02/2016 02:06, Zhang, Helin wrote: > > > >> +static inline int > >> +i40e_read_regs(struct i40e_hw *hw, const struct reg_info *reg, > >> + uint32_t *reg_buf) > >> +{ > >> + unsigned int i; > >> + > >> + for (i = 0; i < reg->count; i++) > >> + reg_buf[i] = I40E_READ_REG(hw, > >> + reg->base_addr + i * reg->stride); > >> + return reg->count; > >> +} > > From FVL5, some registers should be read by AQ commands, otherwise > it may fail to > > read without any warning. > > Please see my patches of which registers should be read by AQ commands. > > Please check i40e_osdep.h from below link. Thanks! > > http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10654/ > > Ok - will change for v2. > > I noticed that other patches in the same patchset expose extra registers > - are these new or were they simply not exposed previously? > > > >> + /* Only support doing full dump */ > >> + if (regs->offset != 0 && 0) > > '&& 0' means it will never be false, right? > > Anything wrong here? > > Oops - some dead code that slipped through.. :) > > > >> + return -ENOTSUP; > > A message before this return to tell the uers what happened would be > better. > > Will add these into v2. > > > >> +static int i40e_get_eeprom_length(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > > Why needs __rte_unused? > > Good point - surprised the compiler did not complain about them, as they > are not supposed to be there.. > > > >> +static void i40e_set_default_mac_addr(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, > >> + struct ether_addr *mac_addr) > >> +{ > >> + struct i40e_hw *hw = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data- > >>> dev_private); > >> + > >> + /* Flags: 0x3 updates port address */ > >> + i40e_aq_mac_address_write(hw, 0x3, mac_addr->addr_bytes, > >> NULL); } > > Checks are needed before writing the MAC address. > > Will look into this. > > > >> +struct reg_info { > >> + uint32_t base_addr; > >> + uint32_t count; > >> + uint32_t stride; > >> + const char *name; > >> +} reg_info; > > I think array definition shouldn't be added into a header file, > otherwise any .c source > > file which includes that header file will define that. > > Since it is quite a large table I think this approach, which is also > used in ixgbe, is the lesser of evils. i40e_ethdev.c itself is already > pretty big, and would prefer to avoid giving a driver-specific table > non-static visibility until it actually has to be used from other > compilation units.
Why not to have a separate .h file, specially for registers table definition?