Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus

["Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 16:18
> To: Xueming Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>; Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Asaf Penso <asafp@nvidia.com>; Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>; Ray Kinsella
> <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
> 
> 14/04/2021 04:59, Wang, Haiyue:
> > From: Xueming Li


> 
> [...]
> > > +static int
> > > +rte_auxiliary_probe_one_driver(struct rte_auxiliary_driver *dr,
> > > +			       struct rte_auxiliary_device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +	enum rte_iova_mode iova_mode;
> > > +
> >
> > RCT style ?
> > 	enum rte_iova_mode iova_mode;
> > 	int ret;
> 
> I don't see the benefit of reverse christmas tree.
> 

I'm impacted by kernel code style ;-)


> > > +	if ((dr->drv_flags & RTE_AUXILIARY_DRV_NEED_IOVA_AS_VA) > 0 &&
> [...]
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/bus/auxiliary/linux/auxiliary.c
> >                               ^
> >                               |
> > Seems no need to add one more directory 'linux' layer, as the meson said "linux only".
> 
> I disagree.
> Linux sub-directory is more explicit.
> And who knows? There could be an implementation on other OSes in future.

Make sense.

> 
>