From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio: Add a new layer to abstract pci
	access method
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:22:02 +0900
Message-ID: <569D8FBA.6050402@igel.co.jp>
References: <1453108389-21006-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <569CE4E6.70206@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com
 [209.85.220.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E865A8E59
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:22:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ho8so181229481pac.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:22:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <569CE4E6.70206@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 2016/01/18 22:13, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> Hi Tetsuya,
>
> On 1/18/2016 5:13 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> The patches abstract pci access method of virtio-net PMD.
>> The patch should be on Yuanhan's below patch series.
>>   - [PATCH v4 0/8] virtio 1.0 enabling for virtio pmd driver
>>
>>
>> Tetsuya Mukawa (3):
>>    virtio: Change the parameter order of io_write8/16/32()
>>    virtio: move rte_eal_pci_unmap_device() to virtio_pci.c
>>    virtio: Add a new layer to abstract pci access method
>>
>>   drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c |   4 +-
>>   drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c    | 468
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>   drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.h    |  33 ++-
>>   3 files changed, 369 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Now I believe we will become more clear about the difference of our
> two implementations.
>
> I was planning to just implement another struct virtio_pci_ops because
> it's going the long way round for my implementation to translate
> virtio_pci_ops to ioport/pci configuration space rd/wr then back to
> sendmsg/ioctl. And in my implementation, there's no need to
> differentiate legacy/modern device.
>
> As I understand, your implementation does not need another
> implementation of struct virtio_pci_ops, but you need different
> implementation in lower layer as this patch show. You want to support
> both legacy/modern device, right?

Thanks for comments.
Yes, I want to support both legacy and modern virtio devices.
I will rebase my container patches on this abstraction, then submit it
again.

Thanks,
Tetsuya