On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:08:22 +0200 David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:06 AM Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com> wrote: > > > The rational to NOT pull "Hardware abstraction library using the BAR > > > address" to DPDK are > > > -Yet another 200K of driver C++ code which does not make sense to keep > > > in dpdk.org > > > -It can not implemenent any of the current subsystems > > > > > > In this context, let me know what you think? > > This hardware abstraction library will have to call some driver > specific API (like the added raw/cnxk_rvu API). > Can this library directly use the PCI driver API, and call the cnxk > common driver? > If so, there is no need to add another driver API (that breaks > layers), and the rawdev driver is only about adding the mailbox > features. > This seems related to the discussion of binary drivers in the TB. There was discussion that any/all use of binary drivers means that the any crashes in DPDK could be cause by that binary. Like the Linux kernel, we need a "tainted" policy. Where any bug reports on tainted use of DPDK are just rejected and forwarded to the binary driver vendor.
