On Thursday 10 November 2016 01:33 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-11-10 15:51, Jianbo Liu: >> On 10 November 2016 at 15:26, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> >> wrote: >>> This is what the current outline of eth_driver is: >>> >>> +------------------------+ >>> | eth_driver | >>> | +---------------------+| >>> | | rte_pci_driver || >>> | | +------------------+|| >>> | | | rte_driver ||| >>> | | | name[] ||| >>> | | | ... ||| >>> | | +------------------+|| >>> | | .probe || >>> | | .remove || >>> | | ... || >>> | +---------------------+| >>> | .eth_dev_init | >>> | .eth_dev_uninit | >>> +------------------------+ >>> >>> This is what I was thinking: >>> >>> +---------------------+ +----------------------+ >>> | rte_pci_driver | |eth_driver | >>> | +------------------+| _|_struct rte_driver *p | >>> | | rte_driver <-------/ | .eth_dev_init | >>> | | ... || | .eth_dev_uninit | >>> | | name || +----------------------+ >>> | | <more> || >>> | +------------------+| >>> | <PCI specific info>| >>> +---------------------+ >>> >>> ::Impact:: >>> Various drivers use the rte_pci_driver embedded in the eth_driver object for >>> device initialization. >>> == They assume that rte_pci_driver is directly embedded and hence simply >>> dereference. >>> == e.g. eth_igb_dev_init() in drivers/net/e1000/igb_ethdev.c file >>> >>> With the above change, such drivers would have to access rte_driver and then >>> perform container_of to obtain their respective rte_xxx_driver. >>> == this would be useful in case there is a non-PCI driver >>> >>> ::Problem:: >>> I am not sure of reason as to why eth_driver embedded rte_pci_driver in >>> first place - other than a convenient way to define it before PCI driver >>> registration. >>> >>> As all the existing PMDs are impacted - am I missing something here in >>> making the above change? >>> >> >> How do you know eth_driver->p is pointing to a rte_pci_driver or >> rte_soc_driver? >> Maybe you need to add a type/flag in rte_driver. > > Why do you need any bus information at ethdev level? >
AFAIK, we don't need it. Above text is not stating anything on that grounds either, I think. Isn't it? - Shreyansh
