RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v4] doc: announce changes to dma device structures

[Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>]

>ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 06:06:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 31/07/2024 13:01, Thomas Monjalon:
>> > 30/07/2024 19:27, Jerin Jacob:
>> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 8:25 PM Amit Prakash Shukla
>> > > <amitprakashs@marvell.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > A new flag RTE_DMA_CAPA_QOS will be introduced to advertise dma
>> > > > device's QoS capability. In order to support the parameters for
>> > > > this flag, new fields will be added in rte_dma_info and
>> > > > rte_dma_conf structures to get device supported priority levels
>> > > > and to configure the required priority level.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Prakash Shukla <amitprakashs@marvell.com>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>
>> The RFC and the deprecation notices are sent a bit late.
>> We cannot conclude there is consensus.
>>
>> I propose to raise it to the techboard if an ABI breakage is still required for
>24.11.
>> As dmadev is quite new, I don't think it is big issue.
>>
>No objection to changing the structures. However, for the actual
>implementation we'll have to review the changes to ensure they are clear
>enough to allow potential alternative implementations. For example, I worry
>about just having one "QoS" flag defined - how would we manage if different
>QoS schemes are implemented by various hw vendors in different ways?
>
>For the notice about structure changes though:
>Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>

This feature was renamed because it required consideration of advanced scheduling schemes,
Strict priority support was added at a later stage.
https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20241011101236.1467783-1-vattunuru@marvell.com/