From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] eventdev: introduce event driven
 programming model
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:10:02 +0000
Message-ID: <20161128091001.GA168972@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1479447902-3700-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20161125002334.GA21048@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com>
 <20161125110053.GA149796@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <4424470.41x0ShzqNA@xps13>
 <20161126005756.GA10955@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 harry.van.haaren@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, gage.eads@intel.com
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9ACB6D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:10:07 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161126005756.GA10955@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com>
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 Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:27:57AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:09:22PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-11-25 11:00, Bruce Richardson:
> > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:53:34AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:35:56PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 2016-11-24 07:29, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 07:39:09PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > > > 2016-11-18 11:14, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > > > > > +#define EVENTDEV_NAME_SKELETON_PMD event_skeleton
> > > > > > > > +/**< Skeleton event device PMD name */
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I do not understand this #define.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Applications can explicitly request the a specific driver though driver
> > > > > > name. This will go as argument to rte_event_dev_get_dev_id(const char *name).
> > > > > > The reason for keeping this #define in rte_eventdev.h is that,
> > > > > > application needs to include only rte_eventdev.h not rte_eventdev_pmd.h.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So each driver must register its name in the API?
> > > > > Is it really needed?
> > > > 
> > > > Otherwise how application knows the name of the driver.
> > > > The similar scheme used in cryptodev.
> > > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h#n53
> > > > No strong opinion here. Open for suggestions.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I like having a name registered. I think we need a scheme where an app
> > > can find and use an implementation using a specific driver.
> > 
> > I do not like having the driver names in the API.
> > An API should not know its drivers.
> > If an application do some driver-specific processing, it knows
> > the driver name as well. The driver name is written in the driver.
> 
> If Bruce don't have further objection, Then I will go with Thomas's
> suggestion.
>
Go with it.