2016-12-22 15:05, Ferruh Yigit: > On 12/22/2016 2:47 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-12-22 14:36, Ferruh Yigit: > >> On 12/22/2016 11:07 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> I think it is OK to add a new dev_ops and a new API function for firmware > >>> query. Generally speaking, it is a good thing to avoid putting all > >>> informations in the same structure (e.g. rte_eth_dev_info). > >> > >> OK. > >> > >>> However, there > >>> is a balance to find. Could we plan to add more info to this new query? > >>> Instead of > >>> rte_eth_dev_fwver_get(uint8_t port_id, char *fw_version, int fw_length) > > [...] > >>> could it fill a struct? > >>> rte_eth_dev_fw_info_get(uint8_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_fw_info > >>> *fw_info) > >> > >> I believe this is better. But the problem we are having with this usage > >> is: ABI breakage. > >> > >> Since this struct will be a public structure, in the future if we want > >> to add a new field to the struct, it will break the ABI, and just this > >> change will cause a new version for whole ethdev library! > >> > >> When all required fields received via arguments, one by one, instead of > >> struct, at least ABI versioning can be done on the API when new field > >> added, and can be possible to escape from ABI breakage. But this will be > >> ugly when number of arguments increased. > >> > >> Or any other opinion on how to define API to reduce ABI breakage? > > > > You're right. > > But I don't think we should have a function per data. Just because it would > > be ugly :) > > I am no suggesting function per data, instead something like: > > rte_eth_dev_fw_info_get(uint8_t port_id, uint32_t maj, uint32_t min); > > And in the future if we need etrack_id too, we can have both in > versioned manner: > > rte_eth_dev_fw_info_get(uint8_t port_id, uint32_t maj, uint32_t min); > > rte_eth_dev_fw_info_get(uint8_t port_id, uint32_t maj, uint32_t min, > uint32_t etrack_id);
Oh I see. So it can be versioned with compat macros. > So my concern was if the number of the arguments becomes too many by time. It looks to be a good proposal. We should not have a dozen of arguments.
