RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 13/14] baseband/acc: add PF configure companion function

["Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>]

Hi Maxime, Akhil, 

<...>
> >>>>> This is same comment as for ACC100 vs. ACC101.
> >>>>> Having a single API would be the way to go, given the prototype of
> >>>>> the functions are identical.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Keep acc200 function, but internal only, rte_acc_configure() would
> >>>>> call the acc100/acc101/acc200/accXXX based on the device ID.
> >>>>>
> >>>> +1 for this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe a bbdev API should be defined to be used by each of the PMD.
> >>>> So that application can be agnostic of the underneath device.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would recommend to send a deprecation notice to remove all the
> >>>> pmd APIs going forward. We can take it for now, but these need to
> >>>> be replaced with generic API as soon as possible. No new such PMD
> >>>> API would be accepted going forward.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> OK understood, we can look into this for 23.03.
> >>> Are we okay to keep that commit as is for 22.11?
> >>>
> >> What Maxime is suggesting is adding a wrapper in PMD to hide variant
> >> of acc.
> >> I believe it is better to do it now as this is long term stable release.
> >> You can send a deprecation notice for removing PMD APIs and adding
> >> new generic API now which can be done in next cycle.
> >
> > Updated in the V10 as suggested.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > This rte_acc_configure() symbol is marked as experimental. I believe we
> can remove it without notice (this is already modified in this serie without
> notice).
> 
> Yes, no worries since this is experimental.
> 
> > Note that this is only used by bbdev-test so this is all self-contained and no
> impact to the ecosystem.
> 
> Given it is only meant to be used by the dpdk-test-bbdev application, maybe
> it could be an internal API? Avoiding to export it would make our lives easier.
> 

I like that option in case we can build consensus on this. 
Using bbdev api for this side-band configuration would confuse the ecosystem since this is out of the remit of the intended bbdev api.
The current method using a formally exposed PMD API is a bit historical, intention only to expose this from PMD code to the bbdev-test but still within DPDK only. 
I will push now a patch for further discussion with such a modification (not required for 22.11). 

Thanks
Nic