-----Original Message----- > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:02:43 +0200 > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, "Carrillo, Erik G" > <erik.g.carri...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, "Van > Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>, "hemant.agra...@nxp.com" > <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>, "Eads, Gage" <gage.e...@intel.com>, > "nipun.gu...@nxp.com" <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>, "Vangati, Narender" > <narender.vang...@intel.com>, "Rao, Nikhil" <nikhil....@intel.com>, > "pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com" <pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com>, > "jianbo....@linaro.org" <jianbo....@linaro.org>, "rsanf...@akamai.com" > <rsanf...@akamai.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/1] eventtimer: introduce event timer > wheel > > 25/08/2017 12:25, Jerin Jacob: > > From: "Carrillo, Erik G" <erik.g.carri...@intel.com> > [...] > > > In summary, it looks like our solutions align fairly well, and I propose > > > that we take on the software implementation if there are no objections. > > > > Sure, no objection. > > Good to see such a basic function generalized for NPU and CPU. > > Are you going to use rte_timer for CPU implementation? > Does it mean that event_timer supersedes rte_timer?
IMO, we don't need to supersedes the rte_timer. The eventdev or event_timer is an optional component. It is application decision to use poll mode vs event driver model or combination of two.
