On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:31:06PM -0800, Vishwanathapura, Niranjana wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:05:09PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:13:50PM -0800, Vishwanathapura, Niranjana wrote: > > > >>In order to be truely device independent the hfi_vnic ULP should not depend > >>on a device exported symbol. Instead device should register its functions > >>with the ULP. Hence the approaches a) and b). > > > >It is not device independent, it is hard linked to hfi1, just like our > >other multi-component drivers.. So don't worry about that. > > > > We would like to keep the design clean and avoid any tight coupling here > (our original design in this series tackled these). > Any strong reason not to go with a) or b) ?
You are not making a subsystem. Don't overcomplicate things. A multi-part device device can just directly link. Jason
