Inline <rk> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 2015-01-04 15:28, Ravi Kerur: > > We have a Gigabyte H97N motherboard which has I217 Intel chipset which > uses > > e100e drivers. I looked into lib/librte_pmd_e1000 directory and I do see > > that e1000e code is integrated but missing some support for read/write > from > > flash_address and other minor things. I have made changes shown below and > > have done some testing with testpmd utility and now have following > questions > > > > 1. What amount of testing is required to qualify patch as successfully > > tested on new chipsets > > There is no good answer to this question. Generally, you must be sure that > you don't break anything. > So you must test the code paths you have changed. > <rk> yes I have done testing on Ubuntu for I217 using testpmd. > > > 2. FreeBSD testing, currently we have Ubuntu 14.04 installed on existing > > H97N motherboard and testing is done solely on Linux. We plan to get > > another motherboard which will have I218 chipset and still deciding > whether > > to go with FreeBSD or Ubuntu. So the question I have is what amount of > > testing should be done on FreeBSD? I don't think > setup.sh/dpdk_nic_bind.py > > works on FreeBSD yet hence the question on testing. > > FreeBSD testing is required when patching common EAL, scripts or makefiles. > > > > lib/librte_pmd_e1000/e1000/e1000_api.c | 21 > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > lib/librte_pmd_e1000/e1000/e1000_api.h | 1 + > > > lib/librte_pmd_e1000/e1000/e1000_osdep.h | 24 > +++++++++++++++++++----- > > These files are part of the base driver. > The rule is to not patch them and try to do the changes in PMD only. > There can be exceptions if an Intel maintainer acknowledges it. > <rk> Changes in these files are modifying existing macros E1000_READ_FLASH_REG, E1000_WRITE_FLASH_REG ... If it is not recommended to modify these files, should I move macros into some PMD file? Thanks. > > -- > Thomas >
