On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:19:44 +0530
Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1866,7 +1871,11 @@ typedef int (*eth_dev_uninit_t)(struct rte_eth_dev
> > *eth_dev);
> > * - The size of the private data to allocate for each matching device.
> > */
> > struct eth_driver {
> > - struct rte_pci_driver pci_drv; /**< The PMD is also a PCI driver. */
> > + union {
> > + struct rte_pci_driver pci_drv; /**< The PMD PCI driver. */
> > + struct rte_vmbus_driver vmbus_drv;/**< The PMD VMBUS drv. */
> > + };
> > +
> > eth_dev_init_t eth_dev_init; /**< Device init function. */
> > eth_dev_uninit_t eth_dev_uninit; /**< Device uninit function. */
> > unsigned int dev_private_size; /**< Size of device private data. */
>
> It is not a scale-able model where we have to change eth_driver/eth_dev
> for every new device type, other than PCI. Maybe VMBus is _very_ close
> to PCI so no changes are required in PCI layer (common, linuxapp,
> bsdapp) - but, for others it won't stop there.
>
> At the least, rte_pci_driver/rte_pci_device should be removed from
> eth_driver & rte_eth_dev, respectively - relying on rte_driver and
> rte_device.
>
> This is the primary reason work on the SoC patchset and now the new Bus
> model is being done.
Agreed. the better long term model is to use C style inheritance where
rte_pci_driver has eth_driver inside.
The other alternative is to make the second element an opaque pointer.
But that was too big a change, and not necessary to get VMBUS to work.
Longer term refactoring will take more effort. Go ahead and address it
with a better bus model, but that probably isn't going to be ready for
a couple of releases.
