On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 2015-01-09 04:41, Ravi Kerur: > > Thomas, > > > > Please let me know how I can move forward on this. If i confine changes > in > > e1000/ directory to e1000_osdep.h file only and the rest in PMD will that > > work? The reason I ask is because of following comment in README file. > > > > ... > > Few changes to the original FreeBSD sources were made to: > > - Adopt it for PMD usage mode: > > e1000_osdep.c > > e1000_osdep.h > > ... > > This is an Intel driver so you should ask to the responsible of this code > at Intel. > The problem is that there is not really an identified responsible for this > driver. > > The rule is to not change the base driver, even osdep files. > But it would be better to have an exception here. > > > PS: please avoid top-posting. > <rk> Please let me know who is the contact person from Intel so I can add him/her to "To" list when I send the patch or Should I contact Jim St Leger and ask him about this? Thanks. > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Ravi Kerur <rkerur at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > >
