[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1318871797.2784.36.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:16:37 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 6/6] ixgbe: change the eeprom version reported by
ethtool
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 08:57 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 05:21 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > From: Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
> >
> > Use 32bit value starting at offset 0x2d for displaying the firmware
> > version in ethtool. This should work for all current ixgbe HW
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethtool.c
> []
> > - snprintf(firmware_version, sizeof(firmware_version), "%d.%d-%d",
> > - (adapter->eeprom_version & 0xF000) >> 12,
> > - (adapter->eeprom_version & 0x0FF0) >> 4,
> > - adapter->eeprom_version & 0x000F);
> > + nvm_track_id = (adapter->eeprom_verh << 16) |
> > + adapter->eeprom_verl;
> > + snprintf(firmware_version, sizeof(firmware_version), "0x%08x",
> > + nvm_track_id);
>
> Is ethtool output like proc output considered an abi
> that should not be changed?
No-one should make any assumptions about the format of firmware_version
strings. However they ought to be consistent with vendor documentation,
update programs, etc.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists