Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] gpudev: introduce memory API

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

03/06/2021 10:41, Jerin Jacob:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:58 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >
> > 03/06/2021 09:47, Jerin Jacob:
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:05 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > --- a/doc/api/doxy-api-index.md
> > > > +++ b/doc/api/doxy-api-index.md
> > > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ The public API headers are grouped by topics:
> > > >    [compressdev]        (@ref rte_compressdev.h),
> > > >    [compress]           (@ref rte_comp.h),
> > > >    [regexdev]           (@ref rte_regexdev.h),
> > > > +  [gpudev]             (@ref rte_gpudev.h),
> > >
> > > Since this device does not have a queue etc? Shouldn't make it a
> > > library like mempool with vendor-defined ops?
> > > Any specific reason for making it a device? The reason why I am asking
> > > this is, as other DPDK devices as symmetry in queue(s), configure,
> > > start, stop operation etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +struct rte_gpu_dev {
> > > > +       /* Backing device. */
> > > > +       struct rte_device *device;
> > >
> > > See above?
> >
> > There is a PCI device probed.
> > I don't understand why it would not be represented as a device.
> 
> All other DPDK device has symmetry in structures like queue and
> symmetry in operation like it has configure, start, stop etc.
> This one seems more like mempool to me all we want set of
> vendor-defined ops. So any justification on
> make it a device ? why not like mempool library?
> (driver/mempool/octeontx2 Mempool HW is also PCI device, but
> we don't take device path for mempool. So I would like to understand
> any technical reason for making it a device).

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetry".