[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 10/10] baseband/acc100: add configure function

[Chautru, Nicolas]

Hi Maxime, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 7:11 AM
> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> akhil.goyal at nxp.com
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Xu, Rosen
> <rosen.xu at intel.com>; trix at redhat.com; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Liu, Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 10/10] baseband/acc100: add configure
> function
> 
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> On 10/1/20 5:14 AM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_pmd_bbdev_acc100_version.map
> > b/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_pmd_bbdev_acc100_version.map
> > index 4a76d1d..91c234d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_pmd_bbdev_acc100_version.map
> > +++ b/drivers/baseband/acc100/rte_pmd_bbdev_acc100_version.map
> > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
> >  DPDK_21 {
> >  	local: *;
> >  };
> > +
> > +EXPERIMENTAL {
> > +	global:
> > +
> > +	acc100_configure;
> > +
> > +};
> > --
> 
> Ideally we should not need to have device specific APIs, but at least it should
> be prefixed with "rte_".

Currently this is already like that for other bbdev PMDs. 
So I would tend to prefer consistency over all in that context. 
You could argue or not whether this is PMD function or a companion exposed function, but again if this should change it should change for all PMDs to avoid discrepencies.
If really this is deemed required this can be pushed as an extra patch covering all PMD, but probably not for 20.11.
What do you think?

> 
> Regards,
> Maxime