Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: app/testpmd: add device removal command

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

23/08/2017 17:09, Gaëtan Rivet:
> Hello Raslan,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 05:37:04PM +0300, Raslan Darawsheh wrote:
> > Added hotplug in testpmd, to be able to test hotplug function
> > in the PMD's.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>
[...]
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > @@ -716,6 +716,9 @@ static void cmd_help_long_parsed(void *parsed_result,
> >  			"port config (port_id|all) l2-tunnel E-tag"
> >  			" (enable|disable)\n"
> >  			"    Enable/disable the E-tag support.\n\n"
> > +
> > +			" device remove (device)\n"
> > +			"    Remove a device"
> 
> I think it should still be a part of the "port" command set (port
> attach|detach|stop|close, etc).

I tend to disagree.
As far as I know, we use port for ethdev or cryptodev.
Here we want to deal with EAL rte_device.

> This would probably be easier to understand for users.

[...]
> Continuing on using the port ...
> format, then the port_id should allow to remove it instead of the device
> identifier.
> Using the device identifier will complexify your implementation.
[...]
> 	eth_dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> 	bus = rte_bus_find_by_device(eth_dev->device);

Note that we are going to remove eth_dev->device which implies eth_dev
but maybe also more device interfaces for the same HW.
That's why I think we need to distinguish port and device somehow.