[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 09/32] lib/ether: add rte_device in rte_eth_dev

[Hemant Agrawal]

On 12/15/2016 8:11 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 12/7/2016 6:41 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>> On 12/7/2016 1:18 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 12/4/2016 6:17 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 1 +
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
>>>> index 3c45a1f..6f5673f 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
>>>> @@ -1626,6 +1626,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev {
>>>>  	eth_rx_burst_t rx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD receive function. */
>>>>  	eth_tx_burst_t tx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit function. */
>>>>  	struct rte_eth_dev_data *data;  /**< Pointer to device data */
>>>> +	struct rte_device *device;
>>>
>>> I believe this change should not be part of a PMD patchset. This change
>>> is more generic than the PMD.
>>>
>>> Won't Shreyansh's patch already do this?
>>
>> I agree that this patch is not a fit for this PMD patchset, Shreyansh's
>> patch is not yet doing it. He will be taking care of it next.
>>
>> So till Shreyansh provide the support, we need it.
>
> If you need it, what do you think sending this as a separate patch? And
> when accepted, your driver can use it?
>

I will prefer to keep this patch as the first patch in my patchset. If 
Shreyansh's patch come on time, we can easily remove it.

>>
>>>
>>>>  	const struct eth_driver *driver;/**< Driver for this device */
>>>>  	const struct eth_dev_ops *dev_ops; /**< Functions exported by PMD */
>>>>  	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev; /**< PCI info. supplied by probing */
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>