From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/32] net/dpaa2: introducing dpaa2 bus
	driver for fsl-mc bus
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:21:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CALwxeUtqtkFEmYApn8_3UBU1fHQ_FepiBL=WheLBHzamgOrhog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1480875447-23680-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
 <1480875447-23680-11-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
 <6b58f8fa-4df0-684e-f1d3-4dc4dba4f0dd@nxp.com> <11053786.o6LJ0UWG8a@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>,
 Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wj0-f180.google.com (mail-wj0-f180.google.com
 [209.85.210.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18772B96
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  7 Dec 2016 13:22:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wj0-f180.google.com with SMTP id tk12so64061113wjb.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 04:22:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <11053786.o6LJ0UWG8a@xps13>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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 Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Thomas Monjalon
<thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> 2016-12-07 15:43, Shreyansh Jain:
>> IMO, the way Bus is kept is debatable.
>>   - should it be in EAL (lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal_pci.c like Bus
>> patches) [1]?
>>   - Should it a 'handler/driver' parallel to device drivers?
>>
>> I personally prefer a clean layer for buses with:
>>
>>   - RTE_SDK/drivers/net/dpaa2/
>>   - RTE_SDK/drivers/bus
>>   - RTE_SDK/drivers/bus/dpaa2/
>>   - RTE_SDK/drivers/bus/dpaa2/dpaa2_bus.c etc.
>
> I agree, it is a good idea.

Indeed.

>> For PCI, which is generic (or for other similar generic buses, like
>> platform), we can keep the implementation within lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/*.
>
> I would be in favor of moving PCI and vdev code from EAL to drivers/bus/.
> We can keep the API in EAL and implement the buses as drivers.
>
> Other opinions?

The only issue I see for now is how to pass the configuration to these
drivers, like vdev args or the pci blacklist/whitelist.


-- 
David Marchand