From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECA816E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 22:01:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4554213F2;
 Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:01:24 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
 :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=AAtsl3l7XTmoL/9
 ++IbQzYYcrI995I3nk/wAKXiaP1I=; b=ksp7YKktGaeGZWw018s9s+mq/zFoHbz
 GnQ0YPMbmYQlYVAF8mueRF3okTF/Nwaxd2RAujI3I/N1wmsZV/Ns+OAPBPyczZXo
 /qS8DNULwq/sz/NdYr3d3J6BYCXQGb1/UNs3oAsDCgjh0H+SVDyb9xV/QrZWzH2A
 DZMGNuYT4+Vg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=
 fm1; bh=AAtsl3l7XTmoL/9++IbQzYYcrI995I3nk/wAKXiaP1I=; b=EFzWabjH
 erpk9HqSbbp2NKfKZxuEQ5Zg5RdTHdeh2IMzHRylgni9WaUSvYAe/sOlPYmzyCn4
 tIVRZvPtuWTJsC0SN4VbYQG4e5Cnzk/4++YFx+bjCZ20ppah1X3EZUxeVGi4HVHL
 M/uWhJ1IylacFgG0LUs6xiZPv7snPjRAuUldxEH4AIRr8pUlgvtOLRnp78bkpUyb
 VR0GLL4WGMdvETd07L2GkeZ1JA3b8E4G+uNva/ZczkxdqlHLZJpYqqEJk3AouFF3
 YLTC0wcWPiTM6m8p+CLaZkQ2p4Ol6lnsv8Y2K5M3MLKjLdRslSOZmvu8zJeoeNmn
 cHYB3Fuowg3Zpw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:lHfBWZ5uBffzdcjY_hcoESwXSEwu6BqO0nE338UnEP7Rm0fgfkmG9w>
X-Sasl-enc: LbRmSGyB8r1PFQlQby9P+YjBh6XfKoBiIcYrK9QpedPc 1505851284
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5E44E7E372;
 Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com,
 Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 22:01:23 +0200
Message-ID: <2610477.kMnjFRTE32@xps>
In-Reply-To: <9142ad53-f75b-de33-cb8d-51ae5a781a2e@intel.com>
References: <20170823141213.25476-1-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
 <b3a1e038-987f-6c03-ffca-c023fa0af4f5@nxp.com>
 <9142ad53-f75b-de33-cb8d-51ae5a781a2e@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 04/41] bus/dpaa: add OF parser for device
	scanning
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 20:01:25 -0000

19/09/2017 16:15, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 9/19/2017 2:37 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> > On Monday 18 September 2017 08:19 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 9/9/2017 12:20 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> >>> This layer is used by Bus driver's scan function. Devices are parsed
> >>> using OF parser and added to DPAA device list.
> >>
> >> So this is device tree parser in DPDK. Do we really want this, and as
> >> long as DPDK target the bare metal why not get device information from
> >> Linux, as done in other cases?
> > As of now I don't prefer to modify the internal framework as much as 
> > possible as this is stable DPDK DPAA driver.
> > There is indeed a planned transition from OF to /sys/ parsing, but it is 
> > still in pipeline.
> > 
> > You see a blocking issue if we go incremental here?
> > That would be probably more of replacing this file with another /sys 
> > parser without much changes to the DPDK glue code.
> 
> OF parser in DPDK looks weird to me, OS will do this for us already.
> 
> If replacing this is in the roadmap, I think this is not showstopper,
> added Thomas in case he thinks otherwise.

I agree with Ferruh.

I am interested to know if there are cases where a device tree parser
would be relevant in DPDK.
Cc Jan who already worked on this idea.