On Thursday 14 July 2016 09:27 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:57:55 +0530
Shreyansh jain [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Jan,

On Wednesday 13 July 2016 11:04 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:20:43 +0200
Jan Viktorin [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

Hello Shreyansh,

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:31:10 +0530
Shreyansh Jain [off-list ref] wrote:
 

quoted

Introduce a RTE_INIT macro used to mark an init function as a constructor.
Current eal macros have been converted to use this (no functional impact).
DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI is added as a helper for pci drivers.

Suggested-by: Jan Viktorin <redacted>
Signed-off-by: David Marchand <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Shreyansh Jain <redacted>
---    

[...]
 

quoted

+#define RTE_INIT(func) \
+static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void)
+
 #ifdef __cplusplus
 }
 #endif

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h
index fa74962..3027adf 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci.h

@@ -470,6 +470,14 @@ void rte_eal_pci_dump(FILE *f);
  */
 void rte_eal_pci_register(struct rte_pci_driver *driver);
 
+/** Helper for PCI device registeration from driver (eth, crypto) instance */
+#define DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI(nm, drv) \
+RTE_INIT(pciinitfn_ ##nm); \
+static void pciinitfn_ ##nm(void) \
+{ \    

You are missing setting the name here like PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER does
now. Or should I include it in my patch set?

	(drv).name = RTE_STR(nm);  

That is a miss from my side.
I will publish v7 with this. You want this right away or should I wait a little while (more reviews, or any pending additions as per Thomas's notes) before publishing?

Please. The time is almost gone. 18/7/2016 is the release (according
to the roadmap)... I have to fix it in my patchset, otherwise it
does not build (after moving the .name from rte_pci_driver to
rte_driver).

I didn't consider 18/Jul.
Please go ahead. I will continue to send v7 _without_ the above change so that your patchset doesn't break. This way you will not get blocked because of me.

quoted

quoted

Moreover, it should accept the rte_pci_driver *, shouldn't it? Here, it
expects a wrapper around it (eth_driver)... I now, my SoC patches were
supposing the some... but I think it is wrong.

The original David's patch set contains calls like this:

  RTE_EAL_PCI_REGISTER(bnx2xvf, rte_bnx2xvf_pmd.pci_drv);

So, I think, we should go the original way.  

I have a slightly different opinion of the above.
IMO, aim of the helpers is to hide the PCI details and continue to make driver consider itself as a generic ETH driver. In that case, dereferencing pci_drv would be done by macro.

In this case, I'd prefer to see DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI_ETH.

At first, this was also my way of thinking. But I've changed my mind. I
find it to be a bit overdesigned.

There is:

DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI(...)
DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI_TABLE(...)

Wouldn't DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI_ETH look out-of-place?

quoted

Also, considering that in future pci_drv would also have soc_drv, the helpers can effectively hide the intra-structure naming of these. It would help when more such device types (would there be?) are introduced - in which case, driver framework has a consistent coding convention.

Hide? I am afraid, I don't understand clearly what you mean.

DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI(eth_driver)
DRIVER_REGISTER_SOC(eth_driver)
DRIVER_REGISTER_XXX(eth_driver)
...

In either case, the caller always creates the eth_driver and populates internal specific driver structure (pci_drv) as a sub-part of eth_driver specification. Macro 'hides' the internal structure name (pci_drv, soc_drv...).
But again, nothing critical. Just a way of usage. We might not even have a 'XXX' in near future.

quoted

But, I am ok switching back to David's way as well - I don't have any strong argument against that.

I'd like to preserve the clear semantics. That is DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI
-> give a pci device.

Has anybody a different opinion? David? Thomas?

Yes please.
Or else, if nothing comes up soon, I will simply go ahead and change to DRIVER_REGISTER_PCI(eth_driver.pci_drv) as this trivial issue shouldn't hold back this series.

quoted

quoted

Jan
  

quoted

quoted

+	rte_eal_pci_register(&drv.pci_drv); \
+}
+
 /**
  * Unregister a PCI driver.
  *  

[...]

-
Shreyansh