From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3ACB8DAA
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  4 Sep 2015 13:18:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2015 04:18:53 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,468,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="762240936"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.62])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 04 Sep 2015 04:18:51 -0700
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:18:51 +0025
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:18:50 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20150904111850.GA10756@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <RFCPATCH>
 <1441364514-24905-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1441364514-24905-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/18] refactor eal driver registration
 code
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:18:55 -0000

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 12:01:36PM +0100, Bernard Iremonger wrote:
> At present the eal driver registration code is more complicated than it
> needs to be.
> 
> This RFC proposes to simplify the eal driver registration code.
> 
> Remove the type field from the eal driver structure.
> Refactor the eal driver registration code to use the name
> field in the eal driver structure instead of the type field.
> 
> Modify all PMD's to use the modified eal driver structure.
> Initialise the name field in the eal driver structure
> in some PMD's where it is not initialised at present.
> 
>
Hi,

I don't think I like this approach very much. It seems very brittle to remove
the explicit type field and starting to rely on the drivers putting a prefix
in the name instead i.e. implicit typing.

What is the major concern with marking drivers as virtual or physical? My thinking
is that we should keep the type field, just perhaps change PDEV to be more
descriptive in identifying the type of physical device, e.g. DEV_PCI.

Regards,
/Bruce