Jan, On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Jan Viktorin <viktorin at rehivetech.com> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:11:56 +0100 > David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com> wrote: >> Ok, so what you propose is something like this ? > > I've expressed my basic understanding of this topic in the RFC patch set > yesterday (as you know). > >> >> - keep rte_driver as it is (init and uninit), I would say the name can >> be changed later. > > Agreed. > >> - add rte_bus_driver (idem, not sure it is a good name) in place of >> the rte_driver I mentioned in my initial mail. > > I don't like the name either. I have no other idea at the moment.
My initial intention was to go as far as possible with the approach I described without caring about the api / abi. Then if the result is worth, see how we could maintain the api / abi and how to manage the changes if not possible. So please, do not hesitate to break stuff. >> Rather than have init / uninit, how about attach / detach methods ? > > You mean attach a driver to a device? Yes, much better. And what about > probe? I was quite confused when writing a PMD as I couldn't understand > clearly where should I start touching the hardware. Yes, I also thought of probe name, but then for unplugging ? We could use the same names as linux kernel probe/remove ? I think freebsd kernel uses the same, so why not. Regards, -- David Marchand
