From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] pmd: Add PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER macro Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:32:15 +0200 Message-ID: <2949761.MjI7H6hKpG@xps13> References: <1397585169-14537-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1947585.TXBcrJqKvb@xps13> <20140418132054.GD4053@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Neil Horman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140418132054.GD4053-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-04-18 09:20, Neil Horman: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:08:56PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2014-04-18 08:04, Neil Horman: > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 04:42:01AM -0700, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2014-04-15 14:05, Neil Horman: > > > > > Rather than have each driver have to remember to add a constructor > > > > > to it > > > > > to > > > > > make sure its gets registered properly, wrap that process up in a > > > > > macro > > > > > to > > > > > make registration a one line affair. This also sets the stage for > > > > > us to > > > > > make registration of vdev pmds and physical pmds a uniform process > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pmd.h > > > > > > > > So you are creating a new header file for PMD API, right? > > > > > > > > According to rte_ethdev.h, > > > > "The Ethernet Device API is composed of two parts:" > > > > "- The application-oriented Ethernet API" > > > > "- The driver-oriented Ethernet API" > > > > > > > > So we should implement this macro in rte_ethdev.h. > > > > But maybe you prefer to split this file in two files. If so, please > > > > send a > > > > separated patch for that. > > > > > > Actually I'm fine with moving the macro to another file, though if I do, > > > I > > > think merging it into rte_dev.h is more appropriate, as thats where the > > > driver registration function lives. > > > > I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. > > My suggestion is to have 2 files in lib/librte_ether: 1 for application > > API > > and 1 for PMD API. > > I'm suggesting not having 2 files at all, and merging rte_pmd.h into into > rte_dev.h, which is where all the rest of the device registration code lives > already. Does that make sense? Oh yes, I didn't understand because you speak about rte_dev.h which is actually rte_ethdev.h. I'm fine with keeping it. I just was wondering if it would be a cleaner API by splitting it as it has 2 very different roles. -- Thomas