On 9/2/19 12:33 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 8/29/2019 5:56 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
28/08/2019 16:39, Andrew Rybchenko:
On 8/28/19 2:26 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:
Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> wrote:
On 8/28/19 12:51 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:
Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> wrote:
From: Ivan Ilchenko <ivan.ilche...@oktetlabs.ru>
+ * @return
+ * - (0) if successful.
+ * - (-ENOTSUP) if support for dev_infos_get() does not exist
for the device.
I believe that allowing PMDs to return -ENOTSUP is not a good idea.
At the moment, all PMDs provides this kind of information. It is not
always very reliable piece of information but for me, it is a piece
of gold I would not like to loose when configuring devices.
I think it should be mandatory for all PMDs to provide this
function. Another possible way, give a sane default contents of
this structure. But, please, do not return -ENOTSUP.
I agree that dev_infos_get() callback should be mandatory, but
what the function should do if the callback is not provided?
One way would be to fail to register a PMD without that callback.
Such PMD driver would be simply wrong. This is what I mean by saying
"mandatory" - the callback MUST be provided.
Typically callbacks are set on probe and
rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_probe() and similar functions could
be updated to reject devices with missing dev_infos_get callback.
However, there is a secondary process cases where dev_infos_get
is not essential since control path may be unsupported in secondary
process.
Anyway, I think it is a separate story.
DPDK could be so nice to provide a default callback named like
default_dev_infos_get_when_you_are_incompetent_pmd_author() returning
mostly zeros and some always "known metadata" like device pointer,
driver_name, ...
Thomas, Ferruh, what do you think?
I like the idea of making some functions mandatory.
If we need to provide a default callback, why not.
I'm also thinking we need to better enforce a standardization
of basic features to be implemented. It would make DPDK more mature.
+1 to make some dev_ops mandatory. At first I can think of:
dev_infos_get
dev_configure
rx_queue_setup
tx_queue_setup
dev_start
dev_stop
+1 as well, but I think it is a separate story.
I really don't want to complicate so big patchset by introducing
more logic here.
As far as I can see dev_infos_get callback is implemented in
all network PMDs. So, I think the topic is not gating the patchset.
specific to 'dev_infos_get', it is to get device info, not sure a default
callback is good idea for it.
And overall agree that 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()' can be documented more/better
...
Me too
