> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:59 > To: Wang, Haiyue <[email protected]>; Xueming(Steven) Li > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Asaf Penso <[email protected]>; Parav Pandit > <[email protected]>; Ray Kinsella > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Yigit, Ferruh > <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus > > 15/04/2021 09:55, Xueming(Steven) Li: > > From: Wang, Haiyue <[email protected]> > > > From: Xueming(Steven) Li <[email protected]> > > > > From: Wang, Haiyue <[email protected]> > > > > > From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Xueming Li > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > + * A structure describing an auxiliary driver. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +struct rte_auxiliary_driver { > > > > > > + TAILQ_ENTRY(rte_auxiliary_driver) next; /**< Next in list. */ > > > > > > + struct rte_driver driver; /**< Inherit core driver. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > + struct rte_auxiliary_bus *bus; /**< Auxiliary bus > > > > > > reference. */ > > > > > > + auxiliary_match_t *match; /**< Device match > > > > > > function. */ > > > > > > + auxiliary_probe_t *probe; /**< Device Probe > > > > > > function. */ > > > > > > + auxiliary_remove_t *remove; /**< Device Remove > > > > > > function. */ > > > > > > + auxiliary_dma_map_t *dma_map; /**< Device dma map > > > > > > function. */ > > > > > > + auxiliary_dma_unmap_t *dma_unmap; /**< Device dma unmap > > > > > > function. */ > > > > > > > > > > These API type can be pointer type defined, then no need "*": > > > > > > > > > > typedef int (*auxiliary_dma_unmap_t)(struct rte_auxiliary_device *dev, > > > > > void *addr, uint64_t iova, size_t > > > > > len); > > > > > > > > > > auxiliary_dma_unmap_t dma_unmap; > > > > > > > > > > Like: > > > > > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210331224547.2217759 > > > > > [email protected]/ > > > > > > > > > > typedef int (*rte_dev_dma_map_t)(struct rte_device *dev, > > > > > void *addr, uint64_t iova, size_t len); > > > > > > > > Thanks, is there a reason to prefer pointer type? > > > > > > Good practice to make code beautiful ? ;-) > > Honestly, I am not sure which one is better, > having the pointer type hidden in the typedef or explicit?
I got this style from 'struct eth_dev_ops', Steven can make the final decision, just a suggestion. > > > > > Thoma's patch looks good, will rebase on it once accepted. > > > > > > I mean the function type is defined as pointer type. > > Yes, I'm talking another topic :) > > His patch makes dma map/unmap higher level to rte_bus, so that no need to > > define the api again here. > > I think my patch will be abandoned. >
