Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus

["Xueming(Steven) Li" <xuemingl@nvidia.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:14 PM
> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/08/2021 13:11, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 7:46 PM
> >> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/08/2021 12:21, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:00 PM
> >>>> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>;
> >>>> NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Neil Horman
> >>>> <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 25/06/2021 12:47, Xueming Li wrote:
> >>>>> Auxiliary bus [1] provides a way to split function into
> >>>>> child-devices representing sub-domains of functionality. Each
> >>>>> auxiliary device represents a part of its parent functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Auxiliary device is identified by unique device name, sysfs path:
> >>>>>   /sys/bus/auxiliary/devices/<name>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Devargs legacy syntax ofauxiliary device:
> >>>>>   -a auxiliary:<name>[,args...]
> >>>>> Devargs generic syntax of auxiliary device:
> >>>>>   -a
> >>>>> bus=auxiliary,name=<name>,,/class=<classs>,,/driver=<driver>,,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] kernel auxiliary bus document:
> >>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/auxiliary_bus.ht
> >>>>> ml
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Wang Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>>>> Cc: Kinsella Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  MAINTAINERS                               |   5 +
> >>>>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_08.rst    |   6 +
> >>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_common.c  | 411
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++  drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_params.c
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ |
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ 59 ++++
> >>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/linux/auxiliary.c   | 141 ++++++++
> >>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/meson.build         |  16 +
> >>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/private.h           |  74 ++++
> >>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/rte_bus_auxiliary.h | 201 +++++++++++
> >>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/version.map         |   7 +
> >>>>>  drivers/bus/meson.build                   |   1 +
> >>>>>  10 files changed, 921 insertions(+)  create mode 100644
> >>>>> drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_common.c
> >>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_params.c
> >>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/linux/auxiliary.c
> >>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/meson.build  create mode
> >>>>> 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/private.h  create mode 100644
> >>>>> drivers/bus/auxiliary/rte_bus_auxiliary.h
> >>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/version.map
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, but this patch already integrated :)
> >>
> >> It appears in the order in which I am going through my email is
> >> incorrect. :-)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Would you like to have a look at another deprecation notice? Andrew reviewed RFC:
> >>> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-August/216007.html
> >>>
> >>
> >> Its not strictly a depreciation notice though, you are not breaking anything right.
> >> Since you are not breaking anything, don't think the notice is required in the 21.11 timeframe.
> >>
> >> Now if you where doing it in 21.08, it would be an ABI change and that would be a different story.
> >
> > Thanks for looking at this!
> > Yes, it targets to 21.11. The offloading flag is fine, but the shared_group does break ABI, detail:
> > 	https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-July/215575.html
> 
> Right ... its a new field, not a depreciation as such.
> What I mean by this is that no existing code is broken.
> 
> 21.11 is a new ABI in any case and you are not depreciating anything, so no notice is required.

Maybe it a new process, confirmed with Thomas, it's expected:
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html#abi-changes