On 7/20/2020 5:48 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 20/07/2020 18:21, Ferruh Yigit: >> On 7/17/2020 2:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: >>> Currently mlx5_common uses CLASS priority to initialize >>> common code before initializing the PMD. >>> However mlx5_common is not really a class, it is the pre-initialization >>> code needed for the PMDs. >>> >>> In subsequent patch a needed initialization sequence is: >>> (a) Initialize bus (say pci) >>> (b) Initialize common code of a driver (mlx5_common) >>> (c) Register mlx5 class PMDs (mlx5 net, mlx5 vdpa) >>> Information registered by these PMDs is used by mlx5_bus_pci PMD. >>> This mlx5 class PMDs should not confused with rte_class. >>> (d) Register mlx5 PCI bus PMD >>> >>> Hence, introduce a new RTE priority level RTE_PRIO_COMMON which >>> can be used for common initialization and RTE_PRIO_CLASS by mlx5 PMDs >>> for class driver initialization. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> >>> Acked-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> >>> --- >>> Changelog: >>> v2->v3: >>> - new patch >>> --- >>> lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h >>> b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h >>> index 8f487a563..522afe58e 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h >>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h >>> @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ typedef uint16_t unaligned_uint16_t; >>> >>> #define RTE_PRIORITY_LOG 101 >>> #define RTE_PRIORITY_BUS 110 >>> +#define RTE_PRIORITY_COMMON 119 >>> #define RTE_PRIORITY_CLASS 120 >>> #define RTE_PRIORITY_LAST 65535 >>> >>> >> >> I guess the name "common" selected because of the intention to use it by the >> common piece of the driver, but only from eal perspective the name >> "PRIORITY_COMMON" looks so vague, it doesn't describe any purpose. > > You're right. > >> Also the value doesn't leave any gap between the class priority, what else >> can >> be needed in the future in between, right? > > And we can imagine a bus requiring a common lib > to be initialized before. > >> @Thomas, @David, I am reluctant to get this eal change through the next-net, >> can >> you please review/ack it first? > > What about skipping this patch and using "RTE_PRIORITY_CLASS - 1" > in the code? >
For now I think it is OK, in the future if more priority dependency involved we can define the macro.
