On 7/5/21 12:30 PM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 5:19 PM >> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; Wang Haiyue <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact-Thomas >> Monjalon <[email protected]>; Kinsella Ray >> <[email protected]>; Parav Pandit <[email protected]>; Neil Horman >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus >> >> On 7/5/21 9:45 AM, Xueming Li wrote: >>> Auxiliary bus [1] provides a way to split function into child-devices >>> representing sub-domains of functionality. Each auxiliary device >>> represents a part of its parent functionality. >>> >>> Auxiliary device is identified by unique device name, sysfs path: >>> /sys/bus/auxiliary/devices/<name> >>> >>> Devargs legacy syntax of auxiliary device: >>> -a auxiliary:<name>[,args...] >>> Devargs generic syntax of auxiliary device: >>> -a bus=auxiliary,name=<name>/class=<class>/driver=<driver>[,args...] >>> >>> [1] kernel auxiliary bus document: >>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/auxiliary_bus.html >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Wang Haiyue <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Kinsella Ray <[email protected]> >>> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> >> >> I still don't understand if we really need to make the API a part of stable >> API/ABI in the future. Can it be internal? > > There was some discussion on this with Thomas in earlier version. > Users might want to register/unregister their own PMD driver, > Is this a valid scenario?
Yes, it is true, but should DPDK care that much about out-of-tree drivers. I'm just asking since don't know techboard position on it.
