Hi Bruce, <snip> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/18] refactor eal driver registration > code > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 12:01:36PM +0100, Bernard Iremonger wrote: > > At present the eal driver registration code is more complicated than > > it needs to be. > > > > This RFC proposes to simplify the eal driver registration code. > > > > Remove the type field from the eal driver structure. > > Refactor the eal driver registration code to use the name field in the > > eal driver structure instead of the type field. > > > > Modify all PMD's to use the modified eal driver structure. > > Initialise the name field in the eal driver structure in some PMD's > > where it is not initialised at present. > > > > > Hi, > > I don't think I like this approach very much. It seems very brittle to remove > the explicit type field and starting to rely on the drivers putting a prefix > in the > name instead i.e. implicit typing. > > What is the major concern with marking drivers as virtual or physical? My > thinking is that we should keep the type field, just perhaps change PDEV to > be more descriptive in identifying the type of physical device, e.g. DEV_PCI. > > Regards, > /Bruce
The eth_ prefix is already required for vdev's for example: testpmd -c f -n 4 --vdev='eth_pcap0,iface=eth0' testpmd -c f -n 4 --vdev=eth_ring0 The eth_ prefix should not be used for pdev's. Keeping the type field and name field is duplicating information Regards, Bernard.
