Re: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers

2020-07-20 Thread Xu Yilun
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:21:43PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > > On 7/16/20 8:48 PM, Wu, Hao wrote: > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers > > >> > > >> Generally i think this is a good approach. > > >&g

RE: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers

2020-07-20 Thread Wu, Hao
> On 7/16/20 8:48 PM, Wu, Hao wrote: > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers > >> > >> Generally i think this is a good approach. > >> > >> However I do have concern. > >> > >> The feature_i

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers

2020-07-17 Thread Tom Rix
On 7/16/20 8:48 PM, Wu, Hao wrote: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers >> >> Generally i think this is a good approach. >> >> However I do have concern. >> >> The feature_id in dfl is magic number, similar to pci

RE: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers

2020-07-16 Thread Wu, Hao
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers > > Generally i think this is a good approach. > > However I do have concern. > > The feature_id in dfl is magic number, similar to pci id but without a vendor > id. > > Is it possible to add

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Modularization of DFL private feature drivers

2020-07-16 Thread Tom Rix
Generally i think this is a good approach. However I do have concern. The feature_id in dfl is magic number, similar to pci id but without a vendor id. Is it possible to add something like a vendor id so different vendors would not have to be so careful to use a unique id ? This touches some