21/07/2020 14:51, Parav Pandit: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:57 PM > > > > 21/07/2020 14:13, Parav Pandit: > > > From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:19 PM Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > This way, net/mlx5 and vdpa/mlx5 will pass their id_map to the > > > > > > mlx5 pci driver whether it is registered to the pci bus or not yet. > > > > > > > > > > And here pci_id_table will not be const *. > > > > > Is that ok? > > > > > > > > This is already the case in the current patch. > > > > I see nothing wrong with it. > > > > The pci code expects this pointer to be const and will it treat it as > > > > such. > > > > > > > o.k. > > > > > > Gaetan, Ferruh, Thomas, > > > Can you please ack as well? > > > > Yes of course it is OK updating the PCI table of the common layer in > > runtime. > > The most important is to keep the fixed PCI table of the PMDs the same as > > registered for pmdinfo usage. > > o.k. pci id table registered with PCI bus will be build dynamically, similar > to how its done in v7. > Instead of doing it in constructor of mlx5_pci_bus, it will be done inside > rte_mlx5_pci_bus_register(). > Right?
Yes > And since we don't register it as rte_bus, shall I name it as > rte_mlx5_pci_driver_register()/unregister(). > Right? Yes, if merging code in the common driver, no need to keep "bus" wording.
