On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 12:18:50PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > 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. > The issue is largely philisophical. We shouldn't need to define the type of bus a driver is on in the init structure of a pmd. Instead we should register it dynamically during pmd initalization
As you note, ennumerating the bus type (ie. PCI/USB/etc) is a step in the right direction, but it would be better to register that dynamically than to encode it in the data structure Neil > Regards, > /Bruce >
