[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-23 Thread Shreyansh Jain
I should have replied to this earlier, apologies. On Sunday 20 November 2016 09:00 PM, David Marchand wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Shreyansh Jain > wrote: >> DPDK has been inherently a PCI inclined framework. Because of this, the >> design of device tree (or list) within DPDK is

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-21 Thread Jan Blunck
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-11-20 16:30, David Marchand: >> For a first patchset, I would see: >> - introduce the rte_bus object. In rte_eal_init, for each bus, we call >> the scan method. Then, for each bus, we find the appropriate >> rte_driver using the bus

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-21 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-20 16:30, David Marchand: > For a first patchset, I would see: > - introduce the rte_bus object. In rte_eal_init, for each bus, we call > the scan method. Then, for each bus, we find the appropriate > rte_driver using the bus match method then call the probe method. If > the probe

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-20 Thread David Marchand
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > DPDK has been inherently a PCI inclined framework. Because of this, the > design of device tree (or list) within DPDK is also PCI inclined. A non-PCI > device doesn't have a way of being expressed without using hooks started from > EAL to

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-17 Thread Shreyansh Jain
On Thursday 17 November 2016 05:25 PM, Jan Blunck wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Shreyansh Jain > wrote: >> DPDK has been inherently a PCI inclined framework. Because of this, the >> design of device tree (or list) within DPDK is also PCI inclined. A non-PCI >> device doesn't have a

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-17 Thread Jan Blunck
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > On Thursday 17 November 2016 05:25 PM, Jan Blunck wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Shreyansh Jain >> wrote: >>> >>> DPDK has been inherently a PCI inclined framework. Because of this, the >>> design of device tree (or list)

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-17 Thread Jan Blunck
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > DPDK has been inherently a PCI inclined framework. Because of this, the > design of device tree (or list) within DPDK is also PCI inclined. A non-PCI > device doesn't have a way of being expressed without using hooks started from > EAL to

[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] Restructure EAL device model for bus support

2016-11-17 Thread Shreyansh Jain
DPDK has been inherently a PCI inclined framework. Because of this, the design of device tree (or list) within DPDK is also PCI inclined. A non-PCI device doesn't have a way of being expressed without using hooks started from EAL to PMD. With this cover letter, some patches are presented which