On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:56:51 +0000 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2020 2:55 AM, Zhang, Tianfei wrote: > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_eth_group.c | 25 - > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_eth_group.h | 1 - > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_hw_api.c | 212 -- > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_hw_api.h | 36 - > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_i2c.c | 12 - > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_i2c.h | 4 - > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_ifpga_hw_api.c | 99 - > >> drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_ifpga_hw_api.h | 15 - > > > > The ifpga base code is want to provide fully functionality low level > > hardware support for Intel FPGA card like N3000, even though some APIs are > > not used by DPDK framework now，but it will useful for end-users or other > > customers developing their own productions , my opinion is keeping those > > APIs of ifpga base code in DPDK. > > > > The code is hidden behind the driver code, it is not accessible to user > directly. > > If the idea is the code can be used later, it can be added when needed. > > If the idea is the code can be needed in the field by users, can you please > give > example on the use case? Dead code is buggy code. Please remove it. Maintaining dead code increases the overall technical debt. Dead code is guaranteed not to be tested. If someone needs it in future they can resurrect it from earlier versions which will always be there in git. If Intel wants to support it in DPDK then it should provide API's and tests for it.
