From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: Add the class_id support in pci probe
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:38:54 +0100
Message-ID: <3789219.tMSa25XPXU@xps13>
References: <1451357606-117892-1-git-send-email-ziye.yang@intel.com>
 <20160113115503.GC7216@bricha3-MOBL3> <56964186.1060800@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ziye Yang <ziye.yang@intel.com>
To: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BD1C492
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:40:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 128so28717322wmz.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:40:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56964186.1060800@redhat.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>

2016-01-13 14:22, Panu Matilainen:
> On 01/13/2016 01:55 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:12:14AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:53:26 +0800
> >> Ziye Yang <ziye.yang@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This patch is used to add the class_id support
> >>> for pci_probe since some devices need the class_info
> >>> (class_code, subclass_code, programming_interface)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ziye Yang <ziye.yang@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Since rte_pci is exposed to application this breaks the ABI.
> >
> > But applications are not going to be defining rte_pci_ids values internally, are
> > they? That is for drivers to use. Is this really an ABI breakage for applications that we
> > need to be concerned about?
> 
> There might not be applications using it but drivers are ABI consumers 
> too - think of 3rd party drivers and such.

Drivers are not ABI consumers in the sense that ABI means
Application Binary Interface.
We are talking about drivers interface here.
When establishing the ABI policy we were discussing about applications only.

I agree we must allow 3rd party drivers but there is no good reason
to try to upgrade DPDK without upgrading/porting the external drivers.
If someone does not want to release its driver and keep upgrading DPDK,
it is acceptable IMHO to force an upgrade of its driver.