On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:58 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 11/2/2021 4:32 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:32 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 10/22/2021 12:56 PM, Tomasz Duszynski wrote: > >>> Add initial support for baseband telemetry. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Duszynski<tduszyn...@marvell.com> > >>> --- > >>> v2: > >>> - make bphy telemetry available only on platforms supporting baseband > >>> - use platform types where possible > >>> - remove unused header > >>> > >>> drivers/common/cnxk/cnxk_telemetry_bphy.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> Since the telemetry support is for 'raw/cnxk_bphy', why it is implemented > >> in common code, instead of driver? > > > > It can be raw/cnxk_bphy, thought of keeping it in common due to > > 1) To reuse it for another common code consumer > > Is it reusable, since the code is to get telemetry data from raw device?
Yes. I meant, common code is reused on another library that has telemetry support too. > > > 2) roc_bphy_sso_pf_func_get() and roc_bphy_npa_pf_func_get() manged by > > common code. aka there is no reverse dependency on the raw driver framework > > in common code. > > If telemetry code moved to raw driver, dependency will be from driver to > common code, which is correct dependency order I think. > > It just looks wrong to have rawdev related telemetry function in the common > code, but I may be missing details, trying to understand. Currently, we are doing like this: - implementing HW specific telemetry endpoints in driver/common/cnxk - ethdev/mempool/eventdev/cryptodev driver-specific telemetry endpoint in driver/.../cnxk. The criteria for deciding what is the second category is, if it uses any ethdev/mempool/eventdev/cryptodev/rawdev symbols or if telemetry-related raw dev driver implementation details. i.e common code does not have any raw driver dependency. > > thanks, > ferruh
