On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:27 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 16/07/2020 18:43, Jerin Jacob: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 9:25 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > > 16/07/2020 15:02, Jerin Jacob: > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:20 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 16/07/2020 13:55, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 4:57 PM Thomas Monjalon > > > > > > <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 16/07/2020 12:27, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:48 PM Gaëtan Rivet <gr...@u256.net> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16/07/20 12:08 +0200, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Re-CCing dev@dpdk.org as it was removed from the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13/07/20 08:13 -0700, Manish Chopra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is merely copy of latest linux/pci_regs.h in > > > > > > > > > > > order to avoid dependency of dpdk on user headers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this dependency is an issue on non-linux systems, > > > > > > > > > > when you must > > > > > > > > > > use those defines in a generic implementation. Can you > > > > > > > > > > confirm this is > > > > > > > > > > the motivation here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, I think it would be clearer to state "in order to > > > > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > > > dependency of DPDK on linux headers". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To add to it, if this is actually the motivation to add this > > > > > > > > > header, I > > > > > > > > > don't think it is sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can restrict the function definition to the linux part of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > PCI bus driver instead, using stubs for other systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Manish Chopra <mani...@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Russkikh <irussk...@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci_uio.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci_vfio.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/net/bnx2x/bnx2x.h | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev_vf.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/vdpa/ifc/base/ifcvf_osdep.h | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_pci/Makefile | 1 + > > > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_pci/meson.build | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h | 1075 > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > 8 files changed, 1082 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h > > > > > > > > > > > b/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h > > > > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > index 000000000..1d11f4de5 > > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,1075 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH > > > > > > > > > > > Linux-syscall-note */ > > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This file is delivered alongside the PCI lib, targeting > > > > > > > > > > userspace. > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be an exception to the license policy > > > > > > > > > > described in > > > > > > > > > > license/README. Code shared between kernel and userspace is > > > > > > > > > > expected > > > > > > > > > > to be dual-licensed BSD-3 and GPL-2.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As it is a copy of Linux user includes, re-licensing it as > > > > > > > > > > BSD-3 as well > > > > > > > > > > is not possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think it might require a techboard + governing board > > > > > > > > > > exception > > > > > > > > > > approval. Ferruh or Thomas, what do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, instead of importing GPL-2.0 file, We can add the > > > > > > > > constants > > > > > > > > as need by the DPDK > > > > > > > > as symbols start from RTE_PCI_*(It will fix up the namespace as > > > > > > > > well). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If symbols can be found in /usr/include/, don't add anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not by default on all the distros. It is part of pciutils library. > > > > > > Moreover, we need these symbols for Windows OS as well. > > > > > > IMO, We should add absolute minimum constants that needed for DPDK > > > > > > as RTE_PCI_* > > > > > > > > > > I am for mandating the dependency instead of copying it. > > > > > > > > You mean _pciutils_ package as a mandatory dependency to DPDK. > > > > > > There is already this dependency: > > > #include <linux/pci_regs.h> > > > > I just checked in archlinux, PCI headers can be provided by > > > > # pacman -F /usr/include/pci/header.h > > usr/include/pci/header.h is owned by core/pciutils 3.7.0- > > > > # pacman -F /usr/include/linux/pci.h > > usr/include/linux/pci.h is owned by core/linux-api-headers 5.4.17-1 > > > > > > > I'm missing the real justification for this patch. > > > > See below. > > > > > Is there some missing definitions? > > > Is there some environments where this file is missing? > > > > > > > > pciutils cannot be installed on Windows? > > > > > Why do you care about Windows? > > > > > I don't see any contribution for qede on Windows. > > > > > > > > You closely review the patch, it not about qede. The proposed file > > > > comes at lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h which is common to Windows. > > > > > > The series is for qede. I'm trying to understand the motivation. > > > > First version of qede driver sent with defined generic PCI symbols and > > generic PCI function like pci_find_next_ext_capability() in qede driver. > > That's a pity the v2 is not threaded with v1, > I would have found these explanations easily myself. > > > In the review, I suggested using generic rte_ function as > > a) It is not specific to qede. > > b) Other drivers also doing the same thing in their own driver space > > as there is no dpdk API for the same. > > This patches create generic API for pci_find_next_ext_capability() and > > remove duplicate implementation > > from the drivers. > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/73959/ > > I agree it's good to have an API for such thing. > > So far such feature is supported in drivers on Linux, > requiring only Linux headers to be installed. > Do we need more?
We would need only Linux headers for Implementing rte_pci_find_next_ext_capability(). I leave, @Manish Chopra to comment on other PCI symbols requirements. > >
