[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 18/18] doc: remove devargs deprecation notices

[Shreyansh Jain]

Hello Gaetan,

On Thursday 12 October 2017 01:51 PM, Gaetan Rivet wrote:
> These actions have been enacted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com>
> ---
>   doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 13 -------------
>   1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index ef2264f..23faa19 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -16,19 +16,6 @@ Deprecation Notices
>     - ``rte_set_log_type``, replaced by ``rte_log_set_level``
>     - ``rte_get_log_type``, replaced by ``rte_log_get_level``
>   
> -* eal: several API and ABI changes are planned for ``rte_devargs`` in v17.11.
> -  The format of device command line parameters will change. The bus will need
> -  to be explicitly stated in the device declaration. The enum ``rte_devtype``
> -  was used to identify a bus and will disappear.
> -  The structure ``rte_devargs`` will change.
> -  The ``rte_devargs_list`` will be made private.
> -  The following functions are deprecated starting from 17.08 and will either be
> -  modified or removed in 17.11:
> -
> -  - ``rte_eal_devargs_add``
> -  - ``rte_eal_devargs_type_count``
> -  - ``rte_eal_parse_devargs_str``, replaced by ``rte_eal_devargs_parse``
> -
>   * eal: An ABI change is planned for 17.11 to make DPDK aware of IOVA address
>     translation scheme.
>     Reference to phys address in EAL data-structure or functions may change to
> 

Once this patch is formalized, the documentation reference for 
rte_devargs.h also needs to be changed as it still refers to RTE devargs as:

"...These devices can be PCI devices or virtual devices....".

Similarly, the rte_devargs_parse too has PCI traces.

Next step would be to remove the "pci"/"vdev" reference from 
rte_eal_dev_attach.

Former can be part of this series, but the later needs to be a separate 
patch, I think. Let me know if you want me to work on these (or later).

Other than that, I think I am OK with overall patch. If you can push the 
final series (I am not sure it would be with or without bus control), I 
can give it a spin (to vaildate if non-PCI like FSLMC bus can work fine).