On Monday 04 July 2016 06:34 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:12:07 +0530
Shreyansh jain [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Jan,

On Friday 06 May 2016 07:18 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Jan Viktorin <redacted>
---
 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)
 }
   

[...]

quoted

+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

quoted

quoted

 	dev_info->driver_name = dev->data->drv_name;
 }
   

[...]

-
Shreyansh

-
Shreyansh