Hi Jan,
On Wednesday 13 July 2016 11:04 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:20:43 +0200
> Jan Viktorin <viktorin at rehivetech.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Shreyansh,
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:31:10 +0530
>> Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Introduce a RTE_INIT macro used to mark an init function as a constructor.
>>> Current eal macros have been converted to use this (no functional impact).
>>> DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI is added as a helper for pci drivers.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Jan Viktorin <viktorin at rehivetech.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +#define RTE_INIT(func) \
>>> +static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void)
>>> +
>>> #ifdef __cplusplus
>>> }
>>> #endif
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h
>>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h
>>> index fa74962..3027adf 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h
>>> @@ -470,6 +470,14 @@ void rte_eal_pci_dump(FILE *f);
>>> */
>>> void rte_eal_pci_register(struct rte_pci_driver *driver);
>>>
>>> +/** Helper for PCI device registeration from driver (eth, crypto) instance
>>> */
>>> +#define DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI(nm, drv) \
>>> +RTE_INIT(pciinitfn_ ##nm); \
>>> +static void pciinitfn_ ##nm(void) \
>>> +{ \
>>
>> You are missing setting the name here like PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER does
>> now. Or should I include it in my patch set?
>>
>> (drv).name = RTE_STR(nm);
That is a miss from my side.
I will publish v7 with this. You want this right away or should I wait a little
while (more reviews, or any pending additions as per Thomas's notes) before
publishing?
>
> Moreover, it should accept the rte_pci_driver *, shouldn't it? Here, it
> expects a wrapper around it (eth_driver)... I now, my SoC patches were
> supposing the some... but I think it is wrong.
>
> The original David's patch set contains calls like this:
>
> RTE_EAL_PCI_REGISTER(bnx2xvf, rte_bnx2xvf_pmd.pci_drv);
>
> So, I think, we should go the original way.
I have a slightly different opinion of the above.
IMO, aim of the helpers is to hide the PCI details and continue to make driver
consider itself as a generic ETH driver. In that case, dereferencing pci_drv
would be done by macro.
Also, considering that in future pci_drv would also have soc_drv, the helpers
can effectively hide the intra-structure naming of these. It would help when
more such device types (would there be?) are introduced - in which case, driver
framework has a consistent coding convention.
But, I am ok switching back to David's way as well - I don't have any strong
argument against that.
>
> Jan
>
>>
>>> + rte_eal_pci_register(&drv.pci_drv); \
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * Unregister a PCI driver.
>>> *
[...]
-
Shreyansh
