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

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 10/1/20 9:50 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi Maxime, 
> 
>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
>> On 10/1/20 5:36 PM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
>>>> 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.
> 
> ok fair enough, thanks

Thanks Nicolas!

I can send a patch tomorrow to fix the other baseband driver API, it
should not be an issue given it is experimental.

Maxime

>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maxime
>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Maxime
>>>
>