20/07/2020 18:21, Ferruh Yigit: > On 7/17/2020 2:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: > > Currently mlx5_common uses CLASS priority to initialize > > common code before initializing the PMD. > > However mlx5_common is not really a class, it is the pre-initialization > > code needed for the PMDs. > > > > In subsequent patch a needed initialization sequence is: > > (a) Initialize bus (say pci) > > (b) Initialize common code of a driver (mlx5_common) > > (c) Register mlx5 class PMDs (mlx5 net, mlx5 vdpa) > > Information registered by these PMDs is used by mlx5_bus_pci PMD. > > This mlx5 class PMDs should not confused with rte_class. > > (d) Register mlx5 PCI bus PMD > > > > Hence, introduce a new RTE priority level RTE_PRIO_COMMON which > > can be used for common initialization and RTE_PRIO_CLASS by mlx5 PMDs > > for class driver initialization. > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> > > Acked-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > > --- > > Changelog: > > v2->v3: > > - new patch > > --- > > lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > > b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > > index 8f487a563..522afe58e 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > > @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ typedef uint16_t unaligned_uint16_t; > > > > #define RTE_PRIORITY_LOG 101 > > #define RTE_PRIORITY_BUS 110 > > +#define RTE_PRIORITY_COMMON 119 > > #define RTE_PRIORITY_CLASS 120 > > #define RTE_PRIORITY_LAST 65535 > > > > > > I guess the name "common" selected because of the intention to use it by the > common piece of the driver, but only from eal perspective the name > "PRIORITY_COMMON" looks so vague, it doesn't describe any purpose.
You're right. > Also the value doesn't leave any gap between the class priority, what else can > be needed in the future in between, right? And we can imagine a bus requiring a common lib to be initialized before. > @Thomas, @David, I am reluctant to get this eal change through the next-net, > can > you please review/ack it first? What about skipping this patch and using "RTE_PRIORITY_CLASS - 1" in the code?
