Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 4:15 PM
> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Wang Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>; Kinsella Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>;
> david.marchand@redhat.com; ferruh.yigit@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
> 
> 23/06/2021 01:50, Xueming(Steven) Li:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 13/06/2021 14:58, Xueming Li:
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/bus/auxiliary/version.map
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > > > +EXPERIMENTAL {
> > > > +	global:
> > > > +
> > > > +	# added in 21.08
> > > > +	rte_auxiliary_register;
> > > > +	rte_auxiliary_unregister;
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > After more thoughts, shouldn't it be an internal symbol?
> > > It is used only by DPDK drivers.
> >
> > So users will not be able to compose their own driver and register
> > with auxiliary bus?z
> 
> Yes, that's an interesting question actually.
> We can continue with experimental/stable status of driver ABI, but we should invent a new ABI flag like DRIVER, so there is no stability
> policy on such symbol.

Not quite understand here, why we want to export the function but no ABI guarantee? the api shouldn't change frequently IMHO.