> 22/10/2024 14:06, Akhil Goyal:
> > > 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.
> >
> > cnxk common has a lot of internal APIs which
> > we do not want to expose directly to application.
>
> Actually the target is an out-of-tree driver, not an application.
>
> > It seems the only contentious API is to get the BAR addresses.
> > All other APIs seems to be fine. Right?
>
> Interrupt management is also something we would like to see reserved to
> drivers.
>
> > If so, we can remove that API and get the bar addresses as you suggested
> below.
> > rte_rawdev_info_get() -> get rte_device -> RTE_DEV_TO_PCI -> get bar addr
> > via bus_pci_driver.h header, exported via enable_driver_sdk option
>
> Yes please, it is better to avoid confusion between driver and application.
> Any driver type layer should be exposed only when the Meson option
> enable_driver_sdk is enabled.
>
> You probably should export the interrupt functions in a separate file
> through driver_sdk_headers, so it is clear it is not an application level.
> Does it apply to the mailbox functions as well?
>
Ok, if we are having a separate file as driver_sdk_header,
We can also keep the BAR address API in that. Right?
