From: Stephen Hurd <stephen.hurd@broadcom.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Christensen <david.christensen@broadcom.com>,
Carl Tung <carl.tung@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] New driver (large patch) question.
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:10:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ9nmBaLEJvcDPiFcQOUxDwcwgFu4E144eM=Hi6jrxo8S-giJw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3156888.xIWalfADA6@xps13>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
wrote:
> > The comments in it are the only publicly available
> > documentation on the hardware I'm aware of.
>
> So you must keep the comments.
>
That's my goal, but the comments are well over the 300k limit.
> > 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?
The header file is expected to be publicly released in the future, so I
tried to keep it as close to the original as possible. I'm not strongly
attached to this approach, but it does make it easier to support future
firmware releases.
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)
PS: please answer inline
>
Sorry, $work just switched us to GMail and I'm still learning the ropes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-02 23:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAJ9nmBaWh8WsuzQcAfrebjaFNYSGsGxEd5Y5DQfWTPuxYY8XWQ@mail.gmail.com>
2016-03-02 10:21 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-02 16:24 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-03-02 21:30 ` Stephen Hurd
2016-03-02 21:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-02 22:06 ` Stephen Hurd
2016-03-02 22:12 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-03-02 22:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-02 23:10 ` Stephen Hurd [this message]
2016-03-03 0:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-03 1:04 ` Stephen Hurd
2016-03-03 5:53 ` Qiu, Michael
2016-03-03 19:40 ` Stephen Hurd
2016-03-02 23:07 ` Vincent JARDIN
2016-03-02 23:43 ` Bruce Richardson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJ9nmBaLEJvcDPiFcQOUxDwcwgFu4E144eM=Hi6jrxo8S-giJw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=stephen.hurd@broadcom.com \
--cc=carl.tung@broadcom.com \
--cc=david.christensen@broadcom.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).