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

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 10/1/20 5:36 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> 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?

Better to fix the API now to avoid namespace pollution, including the
other comments I made regarding API on patch 3.
That's not a big change, it can be done in v20.11 in my opinion.

Thanks,
Maxime

>>
>> Regards,
>> Maxime
>