Re: [dpdk-dev] New driver (large patch) question.

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2016-03-02 15:10, Stephen Hurd:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> wrote:
> > > The driver itself doesn't have a lot of optional features in it, it's the
> > > header file that's too big.
> >
> > It is big because there are many different things.
> > You can split the file in different patches.
> > Examples:
> >         - a patch for RSS will bring the hardware structures for RSS
> >         - a patch for the stats will bring the hardware stats structures
> >         etc
> 
> Should I split additional definitions/documentation that's not currently
> used in the driver as well?  Or should it stay as only enough to document
> what the driver already does?

I don't understand the question.
If something is not used, it should not been there.

> It's a fairly work-intensive project to deconstruct the existing driver
> into a series of small patches that work at each step, is this a hard
> requirement? (if so, I'd better get cracking)

There is no hard requirement. I'm just giving you some advices to get
some reviewers and make them confident when accepting your patches.
By the way, you would get more attention by introducing the device with
some web links and performance numbers in the cover letter.
It is also appreciated to provide a documentation in doc/guides/nics/.
You could also fill the (new) table in overview.rst.

Thanks