[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus

[Kinsella, Ray]

On 04/08/2021 13:11, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr at ashroe.eu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 7:46 PM
>> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl at nvidia.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/08/2021 12:21, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr at ashroe.eu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:00 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>; Neil Horman
>>>> <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/06/2021 12:47, 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 ofauxiliary device:
>>>>>   -a auxiliary:<name>[,args...]
>>>>> Devargs generic syntax of auxiliary device:
>>>>>   -a bus=auxiliary,name=<name>,,/class=<classs>,,/driver=<driver>,,
>>>>>
>>>>> [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>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  MAINTAINERS                               |   5 +
>>>>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_08.rst    |   6 +
>>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_common.c  | 411
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++  drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_params.c  |
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ 59 ++++
>>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/linux/auxiliary.c   | 141 ++++++++
>>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/meson.build         |  16 +
>>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/private.h           |  74 ++++
>>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/rte_bus_auxiliary.h | 201 +++++++++++
>>>>>  drivers/bus/auxiliary/version.map         |   7 +
>>>>>  drivers/bus/meson.build                   |   1 +
>>>>>  10 files changed, 921 insertions(+)  create mode 100644
>>>>> drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_common.c
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/auxiliary_params.c
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/linux/auxiliary.c
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/meson.build  create mode
>>>>> 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/private.h  create mode 100644
>>>>> drivers/bus/auxiliary/rte_bus_auxiliary.h
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/auxiliary/version.map
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr at ashroe.eu>
>>>
>>> Thanks, but this patch already integrated :)
>>
>> It appears in the order in which I am going through my email is incorrect. :-)
>>
>>>
>>> Would you like to have a look at another deprecation notice? Andrew reviewed RFC:
>>> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-August/216007.html
>>>
>>
>> Its not strictly a depreciation notice though, you are not breaking anything right.
>> Since you are not breaking anything, don't think the notice is required in the 21.11 timeframe.
>>
>> Now if you where doing it in 21.08, it would be an ABI change and that would be a different story.
> 
> Thanks for looking at this!
> Yes, it targets to 21.11. The offloading flag is fine, but the shared_group does break ABI, detail:
> 	https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-July/215575.html

Right ... its a new field, not a depreciation as such.
What I mean by this is that no existing code is broken.

21.11 is a new ABI in any case and you are not depreciating anything, so no notice is required.