Hi David, Le lun. 17 nov. 2025 à 09:59, David Marchand <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Hello, > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 09:36, Maxime Leroy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > @@ -4526,10 +4524,14 @@ cryptodev_dpaa2_sec_probe(struct rte_dpaa2_driver > > > *dpaa2_drv __rte_unused, > > > static int > > > cryptodev_dpaa2_sec_remove(struct rte_dpaa2_device *dpaa2_dev) > > > { > > > + char cryptodev_name[RTE_CRYPTODEV_NAME_MAX_LEN]; > > > struct rte_cryptodev *cryptodev; > > > int ret; > > > > > > - cryptodev = dpaa2_dev->cryptodev; > > > + snprintf(cryptodev_name, sizeof(cryptodev_name), "dpsec-%d", > > > + dpaa2_dev->object_id); > > > + > > > + cryptodev = rte_cryptodev_pmd_get_named_dev(cryptodev_name); > > > if (cryptodev == NULL) > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > > > -- > > > 2.51.0 > > > > > Should we add a function to generate the cryptodev name instead of > > duplicating the code, similar to how it’s done for PCI devices (i.e., > > rte_pci_device_name)? > > I am not sure I get the parallel.. > rte_pci_device_name is a bus level name, I don't see how we could > define a fslmc bus level helper that would help here. > Ah, you mean adding a helper internal to this cryptodev driver? > Yes. It's a minor improvement.
Else everything seems good on this serie. Regards, Maxime Leroy
