From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9ACB6D for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:10:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2016 01:10:06 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,563,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="35054636" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.23.61]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2016 01:10:03 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:10:02 +0000 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:10:02 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Jerin Jacob Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, harry.van.haaren@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, gage.eads@intel.com Message-ID: <20161128091001.GA168972@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1479447902-3700-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <20161125002334.GA21048@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> <20161125110053.GA149796@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <4424470.41x0ShzqNA@xps13> <20161126005756.GA10955@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161126005756.GA10955@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model 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: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:10:08 -0000 On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:27:57AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:09:22PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-11-25 11:00, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:53:34AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:35:56PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2016-11-24 07:29, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 07:39:09PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > 2016-11-18 11:14, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > > > > +#define EVENTDEV_NAME_SKELETON_PMD event_skeleton > > > > > > > > +/**< Skeleton event device PMD name */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not understand this #define. > > > > > > > > > > > > Applications can explicitly request the a specific driver though driver > > > > > > name. This will go as argument to rte_event_dev_get_dev_id(const char *name). > > > > > > The reason for keeping this #define in rte_eventdev.h is that, > > > > > > application needs to include only rte_eventdev.h not rte_eventdev_pmd.h. > > > > > > > > > > So each driver must register its name in the API? > > > > > Is it really needed? > > > > > > > > Otherwise how application knows the name of the driver. > > > > The similar scheme used in cryptodev. > > > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h#n53 > > > > No strong opinion here. Open for suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > I like having a name registered. I think we need a scheme where an app > > > can find and use an implementation using a specific driver. > > > > I do not like having the driver names in the API. > > An API should not know its drivers. > > If an application do some driver-specific processing, it knows > > the driver name as well. The driver name is written in the driver. > > If Bruce don't have further objection, Then I will go with Thomas's > suggestion. > Go with it.