On 9/19/2017 2:14 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> Hello Ferruh,
>
> On Monday 18 September 2017 08:17 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 9/9/2017 12:20 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
<...>
>>> +struct rte_dpaa_device {
>>> + TAILQ_ENTRY(rte_dpaa_device) next;
>>> + struct rte_device device;
>>> + union {
>>> + struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev;
>>> + struct rte_cryptodev *crypto_dev;
>>> + };
>>
>> Bus struct should be independt from functionality, this has been done in
>> PCI, can same thing be done for dpaa bus too?
>
> Sorry, I didn't get your point. This is the rte_dpaa_bus structure:
>
> struct rte_dpaa_bus {
> struct rte_bus bus;
> struct rte_dpaa_device_list device_list;
> struct rte_dpaa_driver_list driver_list;
> int device_count;
> };
>
> If you are referring to unlinking eth/crypto functionality from
> rte_dpaa_device - that is something which needs investigation. I have
> seen patches on PCI from Gaetan. Can that be an incremental change over
> this?
Yes, I was refereeing this. I am OK doing this incremental.
<...>
