From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2904FAFD5 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:21:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cpe-098-026-068-216.nc.res.rr.com ([98.26.68.216] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Wb8it-0006US-Gg; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:21:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:20:54 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20140418132054.GD4053@localhost.localdomain> References: <1397585169-14537-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <16254493.92s6zWrT4n@xps13> <20140418120409.GB2812@localhost.localdomain> <1947585.TXBcrJqKvb@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1947585.TXBcrJqKvb@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 03/15] pmd: Add PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER macro X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:21:04 -0000 On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:08:56PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2014-04-18 08:04, Neil Horman: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 04:42:01AM -0700, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2014-04-15 14:05, Neil Horman: > > > > Rather than have each driver have to remember to add a constructor to it > > > > to > > > > make sure its gets registered properly, wrap that process up in a macro > > > > to > > > > make registration a one line affair. This also sets the stage for us to > > > > make registration of vdev pmds and physical pmds a uniform process > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pmd.h > > > > > > So you are creating a new header file for PMD API, right? > > > > > > According to rte_ethdev.h, > > > "The Ethernet Device API is composed of two parts:" > > > "- The application-oriented Ethernet API" > > > "- The driver-oriented Ethernet API" > > > > > > So we should implement this macro in rte_ethdev.h. > > > But maybe you prefer to split this file in two files. If so, please send a > > > separated patch for that. > > > > Actually I'm fine with moving the macro to another file, though if I do, I > > think merging it into rte_dev.h is more appropriate, as thats where the > > driver registration function lives. > > I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. > My suggestion is to have 2 files in lib/librte_ether: 1 for application API > and 1 for PMD API. > I'm suggesting not having 2 files at all, and merging rte_pmd.h into into rte_dev.h, which is where all the rest of the device registration code lives already. Does that make sense? Neil > -- > Thomas >