27/06/2017 20:55, Jan Blunck: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com> wrote: > > /** > > + * Find a bus capable of identifying a device. > > + * > > + * @param str > > + * A device identifier (PCI address, virtual PMD name, ...). > > + * > > + * @return > > + * A valid bus handle if found. > > + * NULL if no bus is able to parse this device. > > + */ > > +struct rte_bus *rte_bus_from_dev(const char *str); > > I still don't agree with this. The bus name should be passed > explicitly by the user of the API. > > NAK.
Please explain why you think the bus name should be explicit. If the bus is ambiguous, it can be explicited by the user. I see some good benefits in being tolerant with the bus/device representation. It provides a smooth transition to the bus model.
