On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:40:00AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:35:14PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:56:14 -0500 > > Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 08:10:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:29:31 -0500 > > > > Neil Horman <nhorman at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 08:30:40AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > 2016-01-18 13:30, David Marchand: > > > > > > > We could do something ? la modinfo, but let's keep it simple for > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With this, you can extract the devices that need to be bound to > > > > > > > uio / vfio > > > > > > > with tools like objdump : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ objdump -j rte_pci_id_uio -s build/lib/librte_pmd_fm10k.so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contents of section rte_pci_id_uio: > > > > > > > 15760 8680a415 ffffffff 8680d015 ffffffff ................ > > > > > > > 15770 8680a515 ffffffff 00000000 00000000 ................ > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes we need a modinfo-like tool. > > > > > > Currently, the UIO/VFIO binding can be done after parsing the PCI > > > > > > device list. > > > > > > It is better to define the device ids locally to their drivers but > > > > > > it must > > > > > > be integrated with an appropriate parsing tool at the same time. > > > > > > And more importantly than any tool, the format of these ELF data > > > > > > must be > > > > > > properly defined, documented and extensible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there someone experimented with such format definition? > > > > > > Stephen, you were asking for this change, what is your opinion? > > > > > > I remember that Neil was also interested in this change: > > > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-January/012115.html > > > > > > Panu, Christian, this change could be related to distribution > > > > > > packaging. > > > > > > Thanks for helping to move this change forward. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I would be interested in seeing this. Is the ask here that > > > > > someone do it? > > > > > As I recall from the last thread that you reference, I thought David > > > > > M was > > > > > interested in writing it and soliciting for ideas. If thats no > > > > > longer the case, > > > > > I can take a stab at writing it. > > > > > > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > > > > > If these are libraries is there a way to have a real entry point > > > > to dump PCI id's. > > > > > > > Sure, you could write a method that could be dlsym-ed easily enough to > > > fetch an > > > array of pci ids, or just print stuff the console. Not sure thats the > > > best way, > > > but definately an option > > > Neil > > > > It is just that reading data with objdump is a kludge likely to get broken. > > > Not suggesting that we rely on objdump in perpituity, only that we export the > data, rather than a method to access it so that it can be reached via libelf. > Using a function to return the information has implicit issues at the moment > (specifically if you dlopen a dpdk driver, its constructor will attempt to > register it with the core libraries). While thats not catastrophic, it means > more stuff than you expect gets loaded, which might have wierd side effects. > Adding a separate section that you could reach via libelf would be nice I > think > > Neil > Hi,
while there is interesting discussion on tools, are there any objections to taking and merging this patchset as-is to at least do the cleanup of the existing pci ids list? I would assume that any tools for querying the patchlist can be done as additional work once this is applied. Regards, /Bruce
