> -----Original Message----- > From: Wiles, Keith [mailto:keith.wi...@intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:53 PM > To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> > Cc: Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/7] eal: move virtual device probing into a > bus > > > > On Feb 15, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 15 February 2017 07:41 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > >> On Wednesday 15 February 2017 03:32 PM, Jan Blunck wrote: > >>> This is a refactoring of the virtual device probing which moves into into > >>> a proper bus structure. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org> > >>> --- > >>> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c | 22 ----------------- > >>> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c | 44 > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > >>> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> > >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c > >>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c > >>> index 7d6e54f..523a3d6 100644 > >>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c > >>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c > >>> @@ -37,8 +37,10 @@ > >>> #include <stdint.h> > >>> #include <sys/queue.h> > >>> > >> [...] > >> > >>> + > >>> +static struct rte_bus rte_vdev_bus = { > >>> + .scan = vdev_scan, > >>> + .probe = vdev_probe, > >>> +}; > >>> + > >>> +RTE_REGISTER_BUS_LATE(virtual, rte_vdev_bus); > >>> > >> > >> Does it matter if VDEV buses are registered before or after other > >> buses? Either way, the callbacks would be called in the order specified > >> in EAL. > >> > >> > > > > Just ignore this comment - I am misunderstood something. > > > > But another question: Is there specific reason VDEV should be > registered/scanned *after* other devices? Is there some specific problem if > we do otherwise? (I think this is should be done, but I don't have a specific > reason). > > Does the bonding driver which uses physical devices need to be registered > after physical ones? In Pktgen I noticed the vdev after the physical ports > and I could not blacklist them as the bonding driver needed them, which > caused the bonding ports to have a greater port number. In the case of pktgen > the bonding ports were up around 8 or 10 and caused the display to not show > the bonding ports. This is really just a usability problem for the developer > using Pktgen. I would like to see the vdev devices first, but as long as the > drivers (like bonding) are fine with them being first.
Ah, now I remember - there was a patch from Jerin for this. Probably he is the best person to comment here. (I don't have much insight here). > > Regards, > Keith
