From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D432A0032; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:32:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EDE40395; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:32:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from VLXDG1SPAM1.ramaxel.com (email.ramaxel.com [221.4.138.186]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2576B40150 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:32:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from V12DG1MBS01.ramaxel.local (v12dg1mbs01.ramaxel.local [172.26.18.31]) by VLXDG1SPAM1.ramaxel.com with ESMTPS id 21I9UWDE020504 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:30:32 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from songyl@ramaxel.com) Received: from localhost (172.20.2.155) by V12DG1MBS01.ramaxel.local (172.26.18.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.17; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:30:31 +0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:30:29 +0800 From: Yanling Song To: Thomas Monjalon CC: , Ferruh Yigit , , , , , , Ziyang Xuan , Xiaoyun Wang , Guoyang Zhou , Hemant Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/26] Net/SPNIC: support SPNIC into DPDK 22.03 Message-ID: <20220218173029.0000798b@ramaxel.com> In-Reply-To: <19818625.Yz81rIOvuz@thomas> References: <3982cadb-5b7e-22b4-d8e7-091ff22e4702@intel.com> <20220212220146.00007431@ramaxel.com> <19818625.Yz81rIOvuz@thomas> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.0.0 (GTK+ 3.24.29; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.20.2.155] X-ClientProxiedBy: V12DG1MBS03.ramaxel.local (172.26.18.33) To V12DG1MBS01.ramaxel.local (172.26.18.31) X-DNSRBL: X-MAIL: VLXDG1SPAM1.ramaxel.com 21I9UWDE020504 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 19:07:09 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 12/02/2022 15:01, Yanling Song: > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:22:10 +0000 > > Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > > On 1/21/2022 9:27 AM, Yanling Song wrote: > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:56:52 +0000 > > > > Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 12/30/2021 6:08 AM, Yanling Song wrote: > > > >>> The patchsets introduce SPNIC driver for Ramaxel's SPNxx > > > >>> serial NIC cards into DPDK 22.03. Ramaxel Memory Technology > > > >>> is a company which supply a lot of electric products: > > > >>> storage, communication, PCB... SPNxxx is a serial PCIE > > > >>> interface NIC cards: SPN110: 2 PORTs *25G > > > >>> SPN120: 4 PORTs *25G > > > >>> SPN130: 2 PORTs *100G > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Hi Yanling, > > > >> > > > >> As far as I can see hnic (from Huawei) and this spnic drivers > > > >> are alike, what is the relation between these two? > > > > > > > > It is hard to create a brand new driver from scratch, so we > > > > referenced to hinic driver when developing spnic. > > > > > > That is OK, but based on the familiarity of the code you may > > > consider keeping the original code Copyright, I didn't > > > investigate in that level but cc'ed hinic maintainers for info. > > > Also cc'ed Hemant for guidance. > > What is the percentage of familiarity in the code? > Scanned by tools: There are 0.8k similar code. > > Sorry for late reponse since it was Spring Festival and I was in > > vacation, just back to work. > > > > Hemant gave the guidance already, but we do not want to keep another > > company's copyright in our code. > > How should we modify code so that the > > code meet DPDK's requirment and can be accepted with our copyright > > only? > > If you don't want to keep a copyright, don't copy the code. > Got it. We will modify the code to meet the requirement of community and upstream it again. Since the change is great, I'm afraid that the new code maybe cannot meet the schedule of 22.03. > > > But my question was more related to the HW, is there any relation > > > between the hinic HW and spnic HW? Like one is derived from other > > > etc... > > > > I'm not clear what's the relation between hinic/spnic hw since we do > > not know what's the hinic hw. > > Do you mean you are copying a driver and its design choices > without understanding what it does? > In my opinion, it does not conflict with open source: we can develop the driver on our own without referring to other driver and will do it this way.