On Monday 04 July 2016 06:34 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:12:07 +0530 > Shreyansh jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jan, >> >> On Friday 06 May 2016 07:18 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Viktorin <viktorin at rehivetech.com> >>> --- >>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 127 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 31 +++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 157 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c >>> index 4af2e5f..9259c2c 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c >>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c >>> @@ -320,6 +320,99 @@ rte_eth_dev_pci_remove(struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev) >>> } >>> >> [...] >>> +int >>> rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(uint8_t port_id) >>> { >>> if (port_id >= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS || >>> @@ -1431,7 +1524,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint8_t port_id, struct >>> rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info) >>> >>> RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get); >>> (*dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get)(dev, dev_info); >>> - dev_info->pci_dev = dev->pci_dev; >>> + dev_info->soc_dev = dev->soc_dev; >> >> I think both the members, pci_dev and soc_dev, should be updated by this >> call. >> Is there some specific reason why soc_dev is the only one which is getting >> updated? > > Yes, looks like a mistake. Thanks! And sorry for delayed reply.
No problems - thanks for confirmation. I have gone through almost complete series and as and when you rebase it, it would have my ACK. rte_driver patchset which I sent last are broken - I will publish an updated version very soon. > > Jan > >> >>> dev_info->driver_name = dev->data->drv_name; >>> } >>> >> [...] >> >> - >> Shreyansh >> > > > - Shreyansh