On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:19:59 +0200 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 2016-06-16 10:23, Jan Viktorin: > > I think, we should consider to move it to somebody else. I would work on > > it, however, I don't see all the tasks that are to be done. That's why I > > was waiting to finalize those patchs by David or Thomas. For me, the > > important things were to generalize certain things to remove dependency on > > PCI. This is mostly done (otherwise the SoC patchset couldn't be done in > > the way I've posted it). > > > > Now, there is some pending work to remove pmd_type. Next, to find out some > > generalization of rte_pci_device/driver to create rte_device/driver (I've > > posted several suggestions in the 0000 of SoC patchset). For the pmd_type removal, I am not very sure about the original David's intentions. What should be the result? Should there be a special struct rte_virt_device or something like that? > > > > What more? > > We need a clean devargs API in EAL, not directly related to hotplug. > Then the hotplug can benefit of the devargs API as any other device config. Do we have some requirements for this? Would it be a complete redefinition of the API? I don't see the relations to hotplug. > > The EAL resources (also called devices) need an unique naming convention. > No idea about this. What do you mean by the unique naming convention? Jan
