Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] nfp-uio: new uio driver for netronome nfp6000 card

[Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>]

Submitting just the PMD for integration makes sense. I will remove all the
references to nfp_uio.

My doubt is with documentation. Working with the NFP PMD will not be
possible without nfp_uio. We could modify the documentation saying it is
possible to use igb_uio, but this is not the right thing to do (pci mask
will be wrong). So, would it be acceptable to submit a new PMD without any
documentation by now? I prefer this for the sake of integration than giving
wrong or incomplete documentation.

Thanks

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Alejandro Lucero <
alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon <
> thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
>
>> 2015-10-21 16:57, Alejandro Lucero:
>> > I understand interest for not having another UIO driver does exist. We
>> > could maintain an external nfp_uio by now till either we get rid of it
>> or
>> > we definitely find out it is really needed. any chance to accept
>> nfp_uio by
>> > now?
>>
>> No, there are some work currently to get rid of igb_uio.
>> So there are little chances to accept nfp_uio one day.
>> Please take the first step of integrating your PMD without link interrupt.
>> Later we'll be able to discuss how to mitigate the interrupt issue.
>>
>
> Ok. I will create a new patchset version without nfp_uio.
>
> By the way, that work with igb_uio is about the patches to
> pci_uio_generic? I thought there was some reticence from the maintainer for
> adding pci bus master there.
>
>
>