[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] eventdev: introduce event driven programming model

[Bruce Richardson]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 06:27:57AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:09:22PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-11-25 11:00, Bruce Richardson:
> > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:53:34AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:35:56PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 2016-11-24 07:29, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 07:39:09PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > > > 2016-11-18 11:14, Jerin Jacob:
> > > > > > > > +#define EVENTDEV_NAME_SKELETON_PMD event_skeleton
> > > > > > > > +/**< Skeleton event device PMD name */
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I do not understand this #define.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Applications can explicitly request the a specific driver though driver
> > > > > > name. This will go as argument to rte_event_dev_get_dev_id(const char *name).
> > > > > > The reason for keeping this #define in rte_eventdev.h is that,
> > > > > > application needs to include only rte_eventdev.h not rte_eventdev_pmd.h.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So each driver must register its name in the API?
> > > > > Is it really needed?
> > > > 
> > > > Otherwise how application knows the name of the driver.
> > > > The similar scheme used in cryptodev.
> > > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h#n53
> > > > No strong opinion here. Open for suggestions.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I like having a name registered. I think we need a scheme where an app
> > > can find and use an implementation using a specific driver.
> > 
> > I do not like having the driver names in the API.
> > An API should not know its drivers.
> > If an application do some driver-specific processing, it knows
> > the driver name as well. The driver name is written in the driver.
> 
> If Bruce don't have further objection, Then I will go with Thomas's
> suggestion.
>
Go with it.