Re: [PATCH v3] doc: add new driver guidelines

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>]

On 9/13/2024 5:19 AM, WanRenyong wrote:
> On 2024/9/13 4:26, Stephen Hemminger wrote
>> +
>> +Finalizing
>> +----------
>> +
>> +Once the driver has been upstreamed, the author has
>> +a responsibility to the community to maintain it.
>> +
>> +This includes the public test report. Authors must send a public
>> +test report after the first upstreaming of the PMD. The same
>> +public test procedure may be reproduced regularly per release.
> Is there any guildelines about how to write a test report? Is there any 
> template?
>

This is a good question and indeed I got it a few times before, I think
we don't have it documented anywhere.
@Nandini, @Thomas, can this be next thing to work on?

We are using free format for test result reporting, you can find some
samples in mail list, please check replies to release candidate emails
in dev mailing list for samples, like:
https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/MW4PR11MB5912FBE30092B821029858EA9FDE2@MW4PR11MB5912.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/

>> +
>> +Dependencies
>> +------------
>> +
>> +At times, drivers may have dependencies to external software.
>> +For driver dependencies, same DPDK rules for dependencies applies.
>> +Dependencies should be publicly and freely available,
>> +drivers which depend on non-available components will not be accepted.
>> +If the required dependency is not yet publicly available, then wait to submit
>> +the driver until the dependent library is available.
>> +
> Could you please interpret dependencies publicly and freely？There are 4 
> scenarios as below:
> 1. A dependency is niche software, but it's open-sourced on github, is 
> it publicly or freely?
> 2. A dependency which belongs to our company and open-sourced on github, 
> is it publicly or freely?
> 3. A dependency which is not available in the upstream distribution, but 
> available in the downstream distribution. For instance, a kernel driver 
> dependent upon by PMD, which is not available in kernel.org，but it's 
> available in openeuler kernel, the openeuler kernel is publicly and 
> freely.  Is it publicly or freely?
> 4. If a distribution does not include > the dependency, I redistribute
it with the dependency and open source,
> this is somewhat similar to mlnx_ofed, is it publicly or freely?
> 

All looks good from DPDK perspective, although it is preferred that
dependency upstreamed to its upstream distribution.

Problematic cases are like (not limited to), dependency only delivered
if you purchase the HW, or it is distributed only if you sign some
agreement, or you need to reach out to company and provide some
information to be able to get the SW etc...


> Hello, Stephen,
> 
> These guildelines are very useful for begineers like me :). I have some 
> questions above, could you please explain them? Thank you.
>