[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 04/12] eal: integrate bus scan and probe with EAL
shreyansh.jain at nxp.com
Fri Jan 6 13:00:46 CET 2017
On Friday 06 January 2017 04:08 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 January 2017 03:16 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-12-26 18:53, Shreyansh Jain:
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
>>> @@ -844,6 +845,9 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv)
>>> if (rte_eal_intr_init() < 0)
>>> rte_panic("Cannot init interrupt-handling thread\n");
>>> + if (rte_eal_bus_scan())
>>> + rte_panic("Cannot scan the buses for devices\n");
>> Yes, definitely. Just one scan functions which scan registered bus.
>>> @@ -884,6 +888,9 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv)
>>> if (rte_eal_pci_probe())
>>> rte_panic("Cannot probe PCI\n");
>>> + if (rte_eal_bus_probe())
>>> + rte_panic("Cannot probe devices\n");
>>> if (rte_eal_dev_init() < 0)
>>> rte_panic("Cannot init pmd devices\n");
>> What is the benefit of initializing (probe) a device outside of the scan?
>> Currently, it is done in two steps, so you are keeping the same
> Yes, only for compatibility to existing model of two-step process.
> Ideally, only a single step is enough (init->probe).
> During the discussion in  also this point was raised - at that time
> for VDEV and applicability to PCI.
>  http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/051306.html
> If you want, I can merge these two. I postponed it because 1) it is an
> independent change and should really impact bus and 2) I was not sure
> of dependency of init *before* pthread_create for all workers.
I forgot _not_ in above - rephrasing:
If you want, I can merge these two. I postponed it because 1) it is an
independent change and should _not_ really impact bus and 2) I was not
sure of dependency of init *before* pthread_create for all workers.
>> I imagine a model where the scan function decide to initialize the
>> device and can require some help from a callback to make this decision.
>> So the whitelist/blacklist policy can be implemented with callbacks at
>> the scan level and possibly the responsibility of the application.
>> Note that the callback model would be a change for a next release.
> Agree. But, that is not really part of Bus patches - isn't it? Or, you
> want to change that with this series?
More information about the dev