Hi Maxim,
From my understanding, what Maxim is proposing is closer to what I was
trying to achieve. The main differences of my proposal vs Maxim proposal
was:
- use a more "POSIX namespace" approach for naming resources (eg.
"/ipc/..." vs "ipc_..."
I see the names of pktio interfaces as platform specific so each
platform can use whatever syntax it wants.
yes, it's platform specific. In your case you can do that names. Or send
patch when my version will
be merged to have same names in linux-generic.
Well, does anyone (apart from me) see any value of doing that? If not,
we will keep that completely implementation specific.
- extend pktio to allow unidirectional communication to save HW
resources
A slight tweak to the current packet_io API. Post a patch.
v4 was unidirectional then I broke my head how to make it bidirectional.
If we need single direction pktio than you can just not implement recv
or send in you specific packet i/o and dont' call corresponding
functions from application. Maybe even flags are not needed if it's
single or bi directional.
I need to know if a pktio is read-only, write-only or read-write on
creation (open()) because on our hardware, using a pktio for RX consumes
HW resources. So if I only need a write-only pktio, I would like to be
able to create it this way because it avoids me to consume HW resources
without needs.
In our specific case, we can merge read-write and read-only case but I
think it is worth supporting the 3 cases for completeness (maybe another
HW will have different requirements).
Thanks,
ben
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
