[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/41] Introduce NXP DPAA Bus, Mempool and PMD

[Shreyansh Jain]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 7:49 PM
> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; ferruh.yigit at intel.com; Hemant Agrawal
> <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/41] Introduce NXP DPAA Bus, Mempool and PMD
> 
> 22/09/2017 16:00, Shreyansh Jain:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> > > At the beginning of fslmc work, I had understood that every NXP SoC were
> > > connecting components with the same principle which we could call the
> > > "Freescale bus".
> > > Then you came with this bus named bus/fslmc, not bus/dpaa2.
> > > Now I am confused. What is the exact scope of fslmc? Is it just DPAA2?
> >
> > My memory is poor. I will have to look through the old emails what happened
> - but I recall there was a discussion in initial phases about the naming.
> "fslmc" came out as a name that is what is the real name of the DPAA2 bus.
> There was initial a confusion if name of bus in Linux Kernel should match or
> not - but, we realized that bus is *not* device and device name is "dpaa2".
> >
> > As for whether fslmc would cover multiple SoC - that is still true. There
> are multiple SoCs within the DPAA2 umbrella. LS20XX, LS108X series and some
> more - all of which use the FSLMC bus (DPAA2 architecture, on FSLMC bus,
> having 'dpaa2' devices).
> >
> > There is another architecture, an old one, which are still popular. This is
> platform type bus which is aptly named 'dpaa' - and here the confusion of bus
> name and device doesn't appear. (DPAA bus, using DPAA architecture, exposing
> 'dpaa' devices).
> >
> > Exact scope of FSLMC is just DPAA2 architecture based SoCs. There are many
> here with new coming up.
> > Exact scope of DPAA bus is just DPAA architecture based SoCs. There are
> many here.
> >
> > Does this clear your doubt to some extent?
> 
> Yes it is a lot clearer! Thanks
> 
> Now that I better understand, I think flsmc bus should have been named
> dpaa2 bus. Is it too late?

:)

I resonate your thought that drivers/bus/dpaa2, drivers/mempool/dpaa2, drivers/net/dpaa2, drivers/crypto/dpaa2_sec would have been more uniform. But again, that would have misled a lot of DPAA2 users into thinking bus name is 'dpaa2' which is not the case.
And anyways, the changes required in the code to reflect this name change are not worthwhile.
I would prefer to go as is.