<snip> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for > > VF management > > > > 2016-09-28 13:26, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > 2016-09-28 11:23, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > If we this way (force user to include driver specific headers > > > > > and call driver specific functions), how you guys plan to make this > functionality available for multiple driver types. > > > > > > > > Multiple drivers won't have exactly the same specific features. > > > > But yes, there are some things common to several Intel NICs. > > > > > > > > > From discussion with Bernard understand that customers would > need similar functionality for i40e. > > > > > Does it mean that they'll have to re-implement this part of their code > again? > > > > > Or would have to create (and maintain) their own shim layer that > would provide some s of abstraction? > > > > > Basically their own version of rte_ethdev? > > > > > > > > No definitive answer. > > > > But we can argue the contrary: how to handle a generic API which > > > > is implemented only in 1 or 2 drivers? If the application tries to use > > > > it, > we can imagine that a specific range of hardware is expected. > > > > > > Yes, as I understand, it is a specific subset of supported HW (just Inel > > > NICs > for now, but different models/drivers). > > > Obviously users would like to have an ability to run their app on all HW > from this subset without rebuilding/implementing the app. > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is an important question. > > > > Previously we had the issue of having some API which are too > > > > specific and need a rework to be used with other NICs. In order to > > > > avoid such rework and API break, we can try to make them available > > > > in a driver-specific or vendor-specific staging area, waiting for > > a later generalization. > > > > > > Could you remind me why you guys were that opposed to ioctl style > approach? > > > It is not my favorite thing either, but it seems pretty generic way to > handle such situations. > > > > We prefer having well-defined functions instead of opaque ioctl-style > encoding. > > And it was not clear what is the benefit of ioctl. > > Now I think I understand you would like to have a common ioctl service for > features available on 2 drivers. Right? > > Yes. > > > Example (trying to read your mind): > > rte_ethdev_ioctl(port_id, <TLV encoding VF_PING service and VF > id>); instead of > > rte_pmd_ixgbe_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); > > rte_pmd_i40e_vf_ping(port_id, vf_id); Please confirm I understand > > what you are thinking about. > > Yep, you read my mind correctly :) > Konstantin > Adding the pmd_ops field to struct eth_devops {} discussed previously in this email thread will allow driver specific functions for multiple drivers and will get rid of the driver specific header file rte_pmd_driver.h. Would this be an acceptable solution?
Regards, Bernard.
