From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for a big eal / ethdev cleanup
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:59:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CALwxeUtpSyh9CAgZzMs4wRFYGMqYtmnNKRbpQszfa+zLLKKVMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALwxeUvXCPp5VcGyL4f91RAChDQWJPdL8=+42smnFOgff6diDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160118155834.04cb31f2@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
 <CALwxeUupKw5wSixZbKY6Y31Jjmq-aLVeivGZCcg1L=iLT7OZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160119112916.5c3172f4@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com
 [209.85.214.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1706E8E59
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:00:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id is5so183773439obc.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:00:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160119112916.5c3172f4@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>

Jan,

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:11:56 +0100
> David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com> wrote:
>> Ok, so what you propose is something like this ?
>
> I've expressed my basic understanding of this topic in the RFC patch set
> yesterday (as you know).
>
>>
>> - keep rte_driver as it is (init and uninit), I would say the name can
>> be changed later.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> - add rte_bus_driver (idem, not sure it is a good name) in place of
>> the rte_driver I mentioned in my initial mail.
>
> I don't like the name either. I have no other idea at the moment.

My initial intention was to go as far as possible with the approach I
described without caring about the api / abi.
Then if the result is worth, see how we could maintain the api / abi
and how to manage the changes if not possible.
So please, do not hesitate to break stuff.


>> Rather than have init / uninit, how about attach / detach methods ?
>
> You mean attach a driver to a device? Yes, much better. And what about
> probe? I was quite confused when writing a PMD as I couldn't understand
> clearly where should I start touching the hardware.

Yes, I also thought of probe name, but then for unplugging ?
We could use the same names as linux kernel probe/remove ?
I think freebsd kernel uses the same, so why not.


Regards,
-- 
David Marchand