On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2014-04-18 09:20, Neil Horman: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:08:56PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2014-04-18 08:04, Neil Horman: > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 04:42:01AM -0700, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2014-04-15 14:05, Neil Horman: > > > > > > Rather than have each driver have to remember to add a constructor > > > > > > to it > > > > > > to > > > > > > make sure its gets registered properly, wrap that process up in a > > > > > > macro > > > > > > to > > > > > > make registration a one line affair. This also sets the stage for > > > > > > us to > > > > > > make registration of vdev pmds and physical pmds a uniform process > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pmd.h > > > > > > > > > > So you are creating a new header file for PMD API, right? > > > > > > > > > > According to rte_ethdev.h, > > > > > "The Ethernet Device API is composed of two parts:" > > > > > "- The application-oriented Ethernet API" > > > > > "- The driver-oriented Ethernet API" > > > > > > > > > > So we should implement this macro in rte_ethdev.h. > > > > > But maybe you prefer to split this file in two files. If so, please > > > > > send a > > > > > separated patch for that. > > > > > > > > Actually I'm fine with moving the macro to another file, though if I do, > > > > I > > > > think merging it into rte_dev.h is more appropriate, as thats where the > > > > driver registration function lives. > > > > > > I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. > > > My suggestion is to have 2 files in lib/librte_ether: 1 for application > > > API > > > and 1 for PMD API. > > > > I'm suggesting not having 2 files at all, and merging rte_pmd.h into into > > rte_dev.h, which is where all the rest of the device registration code lives > > already. Does that make sense? > > Oh yes, I didn't understand because you speak about rte_dev.h which is > actually rte_ethdev.h. > No, its not. Oliviers patch set introduced rte_dev.h to add the driver registration functions. I had rte_pmd.h separately since we were apparently developing in parallel. Since you accepted his, I'm fine with merging the one macro in rte_pmd.h into his rte_dev.h header, since the functionality all goes together there.
> I'm fine with keeping it. I just was wondering if it would be a cleaner API > by > splitting it as it has 2 very different roles. > You've already got it split (rte_ethdev.h for ethernet interface registration, and rte_dev.h for pmd driver registration). The only reason rte_pmd.h still exists is because thats what I had when I did my initial development. The only thing left to do is either merge the stuff in rte_dev.h into rte_pmd.h or merge the stuff in rte_pmd.h into rte_dev.h. Since rte_pmd.h only has one macro, it seems merging it into rte_dev.h is more pragmatic. Neil > -- > Thomas >
