Hi Chenbo,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Xia, Chenbo <[email protected]>
>Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 5:19 PM
>To: Vijay Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]>; [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Vijay
>Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 02/10] vdpa/sfc: add support for device initialization
>
>Hi Vijay,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vijay Srivastava <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 10:47 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]; Xia, Chenbo <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected]; Vijay Kumar Srivastava
>> <[email protected]>
>> Subject: [PATCH v3 02/10] vdpa/sfc: add support for device
>> initialization
>>
>> From: Vijay Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]>
>>
>> Add HW initialization and vDPA device registration support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Kumar Srivastava <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>
>> ---
[SNIP]
>> +sfc_vdpa_hw_init(struct sfc_vdpa_adapter *sva) {
>> + efx_bar_region_t mem_ebr;
>> + efx_nic_t *enp;
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + sfc_vdpa_log_init(sva, "entry");
>> +
>> + sfc_vdpa_log_init(sva, "get family");
>> + rc = sfc_efx_family(sva->pdev, &mem_ebr, &sva->family);
>> + if (rc != 0)
>> + goto fail_family;
>> + sfc_vdpa_log_init(sva,
>> + "family is %u, membar is %u,"
>> + "function control window offset is %#" PRIx64,
>> + sva->family, mem_ebr.ebr_index,
>mem_ebr.ebr_offset);
>
>If ebr_idx is int, then %u -> %d. But if it's a bar index, its type should be
>unsigned int and you should change the definition in sfc common code.
Yes. It’s BAR index.
Thanks for the catch. I agree that usage of 'unsigned int' looks better
for BAR index, however it should result in more changes in similar
places. Is it OK if we use %d here right now to be consistent with
current type and address the review note in a follow up patches
for common/sfc_efx, net/sfc and vdpa/sfc?
