From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] eal/common: introduce union rte_device
 and related
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:24:05 +0000
Message-ID: <20160113142405.GA7756@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1451938106-12145-1-git-send-email-viktorin@rehivetech.com>
 <1451938106-12145-4-git-send-email-viktorin@rehivetech.com>
 <20160113140118.GA16036@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <20160113151227.6cfcd0a9@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3F68E69
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:24:09 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160113151227.6cfcd0a9@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 03:12:27PM +0100, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:01:19 +0000
> Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 09:08:15PM +0100, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> > > The union rte_device can be used in situations where we want to work with all
> > > devices without distinguishing among bus-specific features (PCI, ...).
> > > The target device type can be detected by reading the magic.
> > > 
> > > Also, the macros RTE_DEVICE_DECL and RTE_DEVICE_PTR_DECL are introduced to
> > > provide a generic way to declare a device or a pointer to a device. The macros
> > > aim to preserve API backwards-compatibility. Eg.
> > > 
> > > struct old_super_struct {             =>   struct old_super_struct {
> > >     struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev;   =>        RTE_DEVICE_PTR_DECL(pci_dev);
> > >     ...                               =>       ...
> > > };                                    =>   };
> > > 
> > > struct old_super_struct inst;
> > > 
> > > The new code should reference inst.dev.pci, the old code can still use the
> > > inst.pci_dev. The previously introduced magic is included so one can ask the
> > > instance about its type:
> > > 
> > > if (inst.dev.magic == RTE_PCI_DEVICE_MAGIC) {
> > >     ...
> > > }  
> > 
> > Rather than magic numbers i.e. #defines, an enum might be better.
> 
> True. However, would it be helpful to put really some _magic_ numbers
> there for debugging purposes (to clearly recognize the data type)? Or,
> is it sufficient to just say 1 for PCI, 2 for SoC, 3 for xxx...?
> 
I'd find it hard to see the need for actual magic numbers. I think the magic field
should be renamed to "type" and the values taken from a device_type enum. Should
make the code more readable e.g.

if (inst.dev.type == RTE_DEVTYPE_PCI) { ... }

/Bruce