On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:57:55 +0530
Shreyansh jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
> 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?
Please. The time is almost gone. 18/7/2016 is the release (according
to the roadmap)... I have to fix it in my patchset, otherwise it
does not build (after moving the .name from rte_pci_driver to
rte_driver).
>
> >
> > 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.
In this case, I'd prefer to see DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI_ETH.
At first, this was also my way of thinking. But I've changed my mind. I
find it to be a bit overdesigned.
>
> 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.
Hide? I am afraid, I don't understand clearly what you mean.
>
> But, I am ok switching back to David's way as well - I don't have any strong
> argument against that.
I'd like to preserve the clear semantics. That is DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI
-> give a pci device.
Has anybody a different opinion? David? Thomas?
>
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >>
> >>> + rte_eal_pci_register(&drv.pci_drv); \
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> /**
> >>> * Unregister a PCI driver.
> >>> *
> [...]
>
> -
> Shreyansh
>
--
Jan Viktorin E-mail: Viktorin at RehiveTech.com
System Architect Web: www.RehiveTech.com
RehiveTech
Brno, Czech Republic
