[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 7/5/21 12:30 PM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
>> Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 5:19 PM
>> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl at nvidia.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wang Haiyue <haiyue.wang at intel.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Kinsella Ray
>> <mdr at ashroe.eu>; Parav Pandit <parav at nvidia.com>; Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
>>
>> On 7/5/21 9:45 AM, Xueming Li wrote:
>>> Auxiliary bus [1] provides a way to split function into child-devices
>>> representing sub-domains of functionality. Each auxiliary device
>>> represents a part of its parent functionality.
>>>
>>> Auxiliary device is identified by unique device name, sysfs path:
>>>   /sys/bus/auxiliary/devices/<name>
>>>
>>> Devargs legacy syntax of auxiliary device:
>>>   -a auxiliary:<name>[,args...]
>>> Devargs generic syntax of auxiliary device:
>>>   -a bus=auxiliary,name=<name>/class=<class>/driver=<driver>[,args...]
>>>
>>> [1] kernel auxiliary bus document:
>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/auxiliary_bus.html
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemingl at nvidia.com>
>>> Cc: Wang Haiyue <haiyue.wang at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
>>> Cc: Kinsella Ray <mdr at ashroe.eu>
>>> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
>>
>> I still don't understand if we really need to make the API a part of stable API/ABI in the future. Can it be internal?
> 
> There was some discussion on this with Thomas in earlier version.
> Users might want to register/unregister their own PMD driver,
> Is this a valid scenario?

Yes, it is true, but should DPDK care that much about
out-of-tree drivers. I'm just asking since don't know
techboard position on it.