04/07/2018 04:26, Zhang, Qi Z: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]] > > 03/07/2018 23:57, Thomas Monjalon: > > > 03/07/2018 17:03, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > 03/07/2018 14:59, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > > > > > > +do_eth_dev_attach(const char *devargs, uint16_t *port_id); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you are duplicating rte_eth_dev_attach which is flawed in > > > > > > > its design and should be deprecated... > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, just to know this, but I guess it will not be the issue, if > > > > > > we move the dev > > > > > sync mechanism into eal layer in future right? > > > > > > > > > > Future is now :) > > > > > We must stop mixing devargs and port id in the same layer. > > > > > > > > Ok, is there any RFC I can learn? > > > > > > RFC for what? > > > It is just a design issue that we must stop propagating. > > > > Please read at this commit, which is 2 years old: > > http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=b0fb26685570 > > It was starting to fix early design mistakes, but unfortunately it is not > > yet totally > > fixed today. > > OK, rte_eth_dev_attach is going to be deprecated. > Do you mean we will use rte_eal_hotplug_add to attach a device directly, > then the device driver will be responsible for propagating all the ethdev > port, > and application could register callback for RTE_ETH_EVENT_NEW to know new > ports are created, > is that correct?
Exact! All what you describe is already implemented. To make it clear, EAL and ethdev must stay 2 separate layers. The bridge between these 2 layers is done only by PMDs. > > > > > > > As you may have noticed, rte_eth_dev_attach() is calling > > > > > > > rte_eal_hotplug_add() which manages the EAL device. > > > > > > > It is wrong because the relation between an ethdev port and an > > > > > > > EAL device is not a 1:1 mapping. > > > > > > > We must manage the ethdev port as one of the possible > > > > > > > abstractions of a device represented by rte_device.
