From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] bus: add helper to find a bus from a
	device name
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:03:01 +0200
Message-ID: <2359359.ae4fqFO3lF@xps>
References: <cover.1496876810.git.gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
 <acb6ed9a8e9ae7d99e13d225c73c084262d08894.1497999826.git.gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
 <CALe+Z00ddCUe11MmvUmTkkHGhsth5f8z1_fXhkVpXfKhE68v3g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
To: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7929F29CA
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:03:03 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CALe+Z00ddCUe11MmvUmTkkHGhsth5f8z1_fXhkVpXfKhE68v3g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>

27/06/2017 20:55, Jan Blunck:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> wrote:
> >  /**
> > + * Find a bus capable of identifying a device.
> > + *
> > + * @param str
> > + *   A device identifier (PCI address, virtual PMD name, ...).
> > + *
> > + * @return
> > + *   A valid bus handle if found.
> > + *   NULL if no bus is able to parse this device.
> > + */
> > +struct rte_bus *rte_bus_from_dev(const char *str);
> 
> I still don't agree with this. The bus name should be passed
> explicitly by the user of the API.
> 
> NAK.

Please explain why you think the bus name should be explicit.
If the bus is ambiguous, it can be explicited by the user.

I see some good benefits in being tolerant with the bus/device
representation. It provides a smooth transition to the bus model.