Thanks for clarification, will update in next version.
________________________________
From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:37:19 PM
To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>
Cc: Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>; Wang Haiyue
<haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Kinsella Ray <m...@ashroe.eu>;
david.march...@redhat.com <david.march...@redhat.com>; ferruh.yi...@intel.com
<ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
23/06/2021 16:52, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > 23/06/2021 01:50, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > 13/06/2021 14:58, Xueming Li:
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/bus/auxiliary/version.map
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > > > > +EXPERIMENTAL {
> > > > > + global:
> > > > > +
> > > > > + # added in 21.08
> > > > > + rte_auxiliary_register;
> > > > > + rte_auxiliary_unregister;
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > After more thoughts, shouldn't it be an internal symbol?
> > > > It is used only by DPDK drivers.
> > >
> > > So users will not be able to compose their own driver and register
> > > with auxiliary bus?z
> >
> > Yes, that's an interesting question actually.
> > We can continue with experimental/stable status of driver ABI, but we
> > should invent a new ABI flag like DRIVER, so there is no stability
> > policy on such symbol.
>
> Not quite understand here, why we want to export the function but no ABI
> guarantee? the api shouldn't change frequently IMHO.
Sorry my message was not clear.
I am OK to keep "EXPERIMENTAL" in this patch.
But in future, we don't want to make driver interface as part
of the stable ABI because it makes evolution harder for no good reason:
nobody is asking for a stable interface with drivers.
