[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add firmware information get

Wu, Jingjing jingjing.wu at intel.com
Wed Jan 4 08:48:39 CET 2017


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Yang, Qiming
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 11:33 AM
> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Horton, Remy <remy.horton at intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add firmware information get
> 
> Yes, in my opinion it is. And I use this name already exist in the share code from
> ND team.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:49 PM
> To: Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Horton, Remy <remy.horton at intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: add firmware information get
> 
> On 1/3/2017 9:05 AM, Yang, Qiming wrote:
> > Hi, Ferruh
> > Please see the question below. In my opinion, etrack_id is just a name used to
> define the ID of one NIC.
> > In kernel version ethtool, it will print this ID in the line of firmware verison.
> > I know what is etrack_id mean, but I really don't know why this named
> etrack_id.
> 
> Hi Qiming,
> 
> I suggested the API based on fields you already used in your patch.
> 
> So, this API is to get FW version, is etrack_id something that defines (part of)
> firmware version?
> 
> Thanks,
> ferruh
> 
> 
Different HW may have different version format, so it is better to use string.

And I prefer the API definition in your v2 patch like

rte_eth_dev_fwver_get(uint8_t port_id, char *fw_version, int fw_length);

Thanks
Jingjing


More information about the dev mailing list