Hi Jan,

On Monday 04 July 2016 08:06 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:57:18 +0530
Shreyansh jain [off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -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.

OK, thanks. That's what I am playing with right now. I've rebased on v3 of this patch. There will
be some more tests in my v2.

quoted

rte_driver patchset which I sent last are broken - I will publish an updated version very soon.

I am surprised that you've changed the args to RTE_EAL_PCI_REGISTER... Are you sure about this step?
I wrote that I'll change it myself for v2 for SoC to accept name and pointer as it was originally for PCI...

I have sent across a v6 of the rte_device/driver change set.
Can you see if that is in-line with your expectations as well as the series [1] posted by you recently?
I was making changes for vdev but for now I have ignored them as your series already includes those changes.

I used your patches and based them over the v6 rte_device patchset - besides some minor conflicts, its seems to merge fine.

[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-July/043645.html

Jan

-
Shreyansh