From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B228D97 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:13:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2016 05:13:13 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,312,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="863048467" Received: from shwdeisgchi083.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.239.67.119]) ([10.239.67.119]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2016 05:13:12 -0800 To: Tetsuya Mukawa , dev@dpdk.org References: <1453108389-21006-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> From: "Tan, Jianfeng" Message-ID: <569CE4E6.70206@intel.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 21:13:10 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1453108389-21006-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] virtio: Add a new layer to abstract pci access method 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, 18 Jan 2016 13:13:14 -0000 Hi Tetsuya, On 1/18/2016 5:13 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: > The patches abstract pci access method of virtio-net PMD. > The patch should be on Yuanhan's below patch series. > - [PATCH v4 0/8] virtio 1.0 enabling for virtio pmd driver > > > Tetsuya Mukawa (3): > virtio: Change the parameter order of io_write8/16/32() > virtio: move rte_eal_pci_unmap_device() to virtio_pci.c > virtio: Add a new layer to abstract pci access method > > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c | 4 +- > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 468 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.h | 33 ++- > 3 files changed, 369 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-) > Now I believe we will become more clear about the difference of our two implementations. I was planning to just implement another struct virtio_pci_ops because it's going the long way round for my implementation to translate virtio_pci_ops to ioport/pci configuration space rd/wr then back to sendmsg/ioctl. And in my implementation, there's no need to differentiate legacy/modern device. As I understand, your implementation does not need another implementation of struct virtio_pci_ops, but you need different implementation in lower layer as this patch show. You want to support both legacy/modern device, right? By the way, this patch looks good to me. Thanks, Jianfeng