On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:40:08 +0530 Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
> > Overall I like to see the clean separation. > > Are you sure you removed as much as possible from PCI? > > I am not very sure of what you mean. > > If you are referring to whether all PCI PMDs have been taken care of, I > think they are. Only issue being I can't test all of them functionally. > I have some steps provided by Thomas which can help me compile test these. > > Or, if you are referring to whether PCI drivers have been completely > disconnected from existing EAL (and converted to above linkage), I think > yes. > > Key change that still remains is delinking eth_driver from PCI type and > using a more generic approach where eth_driver (or rte_eth_driver, after > name change) can be of any type - PCI, Virtual, SoC etc. > > > I wonder of global PCI device list is needed at all if you now have list of > > all devices. > > > > I think yes. There are separate lists for all device types which helps > keep the EAL code free of type checks. But, functionally it doesn't make > that big a different between a common or specific list. > I am in favor of separate lists of each rte_xxx_device/driver type - > other than a global list (which is not actually being used, for now). I was just concerned that doing bookkeeping on multiple lists creates more possibilities for bugs where error unwind paths don't match.
