DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	Laurent Hardy <laurent.hardy@6wind.com>,
	"David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] librte_ethdev: extend dpdk api led control to query capability
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:37:49 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <74b45082-1ee1-ae26-150c-8091d09bb4ea@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2017012.Icojqenx9y@xps>

On 1/8/20 5:27 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 08/01/2020 15:15, Andrew Rybchenko:
>> On 1/8/20 4:52 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2020 1:25 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 08/01/2020 14:20, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>> On 1/8/2020 1:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>> 08/01/2020 13:59, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>>> But for dev_ops, instead of having another capabilities indicator, which
>>>>>>> requires PMDs to keep this synchronized, I think it is better if we can self
>>>>>>> contain this information within dev_ops, like not implementing dev_ops would
>>>>>>> mean it is not supported, this way it is easier to maintain and less error prone.
>>>>>> It means the dev_ops is resetted at init if a device does not support the feature.
>>>>>> It is against having const dev_ops.
>>>>> I didn't get your comment.
>>>>> For example getting FW version, I am saying instead of keeping another piece of
>>>>> information to say if it is supported by device/driver, better to grasp this
>>>>> from if the driver implemented 'fw_version_get' dev_ops or not.
>>>> I like this approach.
>>>> Capabilities should be expressed by setting the function pointer or not (NULL).
>>>> But a driver may support a feature for a subset of devices.
>>> In that case dev_ops itself can return the '-ENOTSUP', since application
>>> interaction will be through the ethdev API, either API send '-ENOTSUP' because
>>> the dev_ops is NULL or dev_ops itself send the '-ENOTSUP' because of the
>>> underlying version of the device, for application it will be clear that that
>>> feature is not supported.
>> I think it is a good illustration why deriving the capability
>> from dev_ops pointer is not that good idea.
>>
>>>> If a device does not support a feature, the function pointer must be set to NULL.
>>>> The only issue is having dev_ops as a const struct.
>>> Not sure about changing the dev_ops on runtime, it can be very hard to debug.
>> I hope it was just an idea to copy dev_ops and adjust in
>> accordance with the device capabilities on register.
>> I.e. not fully dynamic changes in runtime.
> Changing a function pointer in runtime is tough :)
> I was thinking about changing it during init but I don't really see a great value.

Yes exactly, copying just solve the 'const' problem.

> Probably better to return ENOTSUP.
>
> Anyway it does not address the capability info need.

Yes, I agree. Back to other branch of the thread:
dev_info flag vs dedicated dev_ops function.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-08 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-07 14:56 Laurent Hardy
2020-01-08  8:56 ` David Marchand
2020-01-08  9:09   ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08  9:42     ` Olivier Matz
2020-01-08 12:12       ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 12:27         ` Olivier Matz
2020-01-08 14:08           ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 14:45             ` Laurent Hardy
2020-01-08  9:55     ` David Marchand
2020-01-08 10:31       ` Laurent Hardy
2020-01-08 12:59         ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 13:06           ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-08 13:20             ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 13:25               ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-08 13:34                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-08 13:53                   ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 13:52                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 14:01                   ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 14:15                   ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-01-08 14:27                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-08 14:37                       ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2020-01-08 13:58             ` Laurent Hardy
2020-01-08 14:07               ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-08 15:16                 ` Laurent Hardy
2020-05-08 12:03                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-05-08 12:11               ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 12:30       ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-08 13:00         ` David Marchand
2020-01-08 13:11           ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=74b45082-1ee1-ae26-150c-8091d09bb4ea@solarflare.com \
    --to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=laurent.hardy@6wind.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).