Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ntnic: add PMD driver

[Finn Christensen <fc@napatech.com>]

> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: 29. august 2016 12:04
> To: Finn Christensen <fc@napatech.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ntnic: add PMD driver
>
> 2016-08-29 06:22, Finn Christensen:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]
> > > What is the license of this driver suite?
> >
> > The driver suite is a closed-source driver, which is not free downloadable.
> >
> > > IMHO the upstream DPDK shouldn't be a platform for non-free driver
> suites.
> >
> > This is our first steps towards opensource, and our upcoming NIC is
> > partly build on HW and SW from our Accelerator products.
> > And since we already bypasses the kernel effectively in our driver,
> > this first solution for a DPDK PMD driver, has been built on top of
> > that software suite.
> > We like the idea of opensource, but we will need to do the transition
> > stepwise, considering our NIC product.
>
> I think the first step should be to free the lowest level, here the code you
> build your drivers on.

I think that will not become a problem.

> > We have seen large performance improvements (x4-x7 times with 64 byte
> > packets compared to a std NIC in a phy-ovs-vm-ovs-phy setup utilizing
> > a modified DPDK), and this is the main motivation to go forward and
> > try to push our contribution to DPDK upstream.
> > This is the first step of contributions that we want to make.
> > This DPDK PMD solution is not compileable unless you have our driver.
>
> Not being able to compile the PMD is a real problem for maintenance.
> The PMD would be considered as dead code, so is forbidden.

Yes, that does fully make sense. We will come up with a way to freely download a
driver with header files and libraries to make it possible for anyone to build the PMD.

>
> > We may need to make that possible, so that a free downloadable driver
> > can be retrieved.
> >
> > Once this is said, we thought that the DPDK was BSD licensed and I
> > must admit that we have failed to see this limitation that you are
> mentioning.
> > Is there another license or agreement text that we need to read?
>
> Maybe you'll find some interesting parts in the contributing guide.
> But honestly, I think you have already done the right thing in your case:
> you sent some code and open the discussion :) Now you just need to enable
> a free compilation environment for your patch.
> Thanks

We will do that. I'll get back with an updated patch once this has been established.
Thank you both for your help on this.


Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorized persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system.