On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:11:42AM +0200, Gaėtan Rivet wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:06:03AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> > 29/06/2017 20:22, Jan Blunck: >> > > /** >> > > + * Hotplug add a given device to a specific bus. >> > > + * >> > > + * @param busname >> > > + * The bus name the device is added to. >> > > + * @param devname >> > > + * The device name. Based on this device name, eal will identify a >> > > driver >> > > + * capable of handling it and pass it to the driver probing function. >> > > + * @param devargs >> > > + * Device arguments to be passed to the driver. >> > > + * @return >> > > + * 0 on success, negative on error. >> > > + */ >> > > +int rte_eal_hotplug_add(const char *busname, const char *devname, >> > > + const char *devargs); >> > >> > After the hotplug, we may need to get the rte_device. >> > Should we add a struct **rte_device as parameter, >> > or should we add a helper function to get the rte_device >> > from busname and devname? >> >> Also possible: return a struct *rte_device and set rte_errno on error. >> > +1 for this option.
Given that the caller of this is usually something that injects events from the system I wonder what it is going to do with a rte_device reference. Additionally to what the caller knows anyway (name, numa_node, devargs) it can check if a driver got assigned. Sure the caller could upcast conditionally based on the busname ... At this point I guess the control plane would anyway want to get access to a high-level object, e.g. the rte_ethdev. I believe it is better to decouple this through callbacks that can get registered with individual buses.
