Hi Thomas, <snip>
> -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF > management > > 2016-09-28 14:48, Iremonger, Bernard: > > <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? > > How pmd_ops would be different of eth_devops? There is not a lot of difference, however it would separate generic ethdev functions from driver specific functions. Regards, Bernard.
