On Friday 06 January 2017 08:56 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

2017-01-06 17:14, Shreyansh Jain:

quoted

On Wednesday 04 January 2017 03:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

2016-12-26 18:53, Shreyansh Jain:

quoted

--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h

@@ -152,6 +162,8 @@ struct rte_driver {
 	struct rte_bus *bus;           /**< Bus serviced by this driver */
 	const char *name;                   /**< Driver name. */
 	const char *alias;              /**< Driver alias. */
+	driver_probe_t *probe;         /**< Probe the device */
+	driver_remove_t *remove;       /**< Remove/hotplugging the device */
 };

If I understand well, this probe function does neither scan nor match.
So it could be named init.

Current model is:

After scanning for devices and populating bus->device_list,
Bus probe does:
  `-> bus->match()
  `-> rte_driver->probe() for matched driver

For PCI drivers, '.probe = rte_eal_pci_probe'.

For example, igb_ethdev.c:

--->8---
static struct eth_driver rte_igb_pmd = {
         .pci_drv = {
                 .driver = {
                         .probe = rte_eal_pci_probe,
                         .remove = rte_eal_pci_remove,
                 },
...
--->8---

Yes
I'm just having some doubts about the naming "probe" compared to "init".
And yes I know I was advocating to unify naming to "probe" recently :)
I would like to be sure it is not confusing for anyone.
Do you agree that "init" refers to global driver initialization and
"probe" refers to instantiating a device?

Ok. Makes sense as a standardized way of differentiating 'init' from 
'probe'.

If yes, the comment could be changed from "Probe the device" to
"Check and instantiate a device".

Now that probe if removed from rte_driver, I think this would no longer 
be valid. [1]

[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054140.html

quoted

quoted

I think the probe (init) and remove ops must be specific to the bus.
We can have them in rte_bus, and as an example, the pci implementation
would call the pci probe and remove ops of rte_pci_driver.

I do not understand clearly what I was saying here :/

:)

quoted

So,
---
After scanning for devices (bus->scan()):
Bus probe (rte_eal_bus_probe()):
  `-> bus->match()
  `-> bus->init() - a new fn rte_bus_pci_init()

I suggest the naming bus->probe().
It is currently implemented in rte_eal_pci_probe_one_driver().

quoted

      -> which calls rte_eal_pci_probe()

Not needed here, this function is converted into the PCI match function.

quoted

      -> and rte_pci_driver->probe()

Yes, bus->probe() makes some processing and calls rte_pci_driver->probe().

I have made some changes on similar lines. Will share them soon. Then we 
can discuss again.

quoted

and remove rte_driver probe and remove callbacks because they are now
redundant. (they were added in bus patches itself)
---

Is the above correct understanding of your statement?

I think we just need to move probe/remove in rte_pci_driver.

quoted

Somehow I don't remember why I didn't do this in first place - it seems
to be better option than introducing a rte_driver->probe()/remove()
layer. I will change it (and think again why I rejected this idea in
first place). Thanks.

Thanks