> On Dec 9, 2020, at 10:24 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 12/9/2020 2:36 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote: >> Please respond to my questions this time. I have ~70 more patches to post by >> December 20. >>> On Dec 9, 2020, at 7:03 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com >>> <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/4/2020 8:16 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote: >>>> The UNMAINTAINED flag will be removed in a future patch. >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Boyer <abo...@pensando.io >>>> <mailto:abo...@pensando.io>> >>>> --- >>>> MAINTAINERS | 3 ++- >>>> doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini | 2 ++ >>>> doc/guides/nics/ionic.rst | 13 +++++++------ >>>> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>>> index eafe9f8c4..6534983c1 100644 >>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>>> @@ -841,7 +841,8 @@ F: drivers/net/pfe/ >>>> F: doc/guides/nics/features/pfe.ini >>>> Pensando ionic - UNMAINTAINED >>>> -M: Alfredo Cardigliano <cardigli...@ntop.org >>>> <mailto:cardigli...@ntop.org>> >>>> +M: Andrew Boyer <abo...@pensando.io <mailto:abo...@pensando.io>> >>>> +M: Pensando Drivers <driv...@pensando.io <mailto:driv...@pensando.io>> >>> >>> Same comment from previous version, please don't add group as maintainer, >>> only actual people. >> I responded to your original comment about this back in November. Is there >> an official DPDK policy against doing this? Is it your preference? We would >> very much prefer to have this in the file as a fallback. As long as there is >> still at least one person listed, what is the harm? > > There is no official policy against it as far as I know. > > The problem with the groups is we don't know who is behind it, it blurs who > is the owner/responsible of the component. Actual people makes it clear that > who is responsible. > > Why do you prefer to add a group as maintainer?
Because if I am on leave for some reason, one of the other handful of maintainers might be able to help someone with a problem or a question. If I am listed specifically, doesn’t that make clear “who is the owner/responsible” for ionic PMD? What harm does having drivers@ listed do? >>>> F: drivers/net/ionic/ >>>> F: doc/guides/nics/ionic.rst >>>> F: doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini >>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini >>>> b/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini >>>> index 083c7bd99..dd29dbed6 100644 >>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini >>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Speed capabilities = Y >>>> Link status = Y >>>> Link status event = Y >>>> Queue start/stop = Y >>>> +Lock-free Tx queue = Y >>> >>> Are you sure this is supported? >>> Since it is not advertised as capability, I think this can't be claimed as >>> supported, but still even after this is added as capability, can you please >>> confirm your device supports multiple core enqueue to same queue without >>> locks? >> I misunderstood the meaning of this flag, will remove. >>>> MTU update = Y >>>> Jumbo frame = Y >>>> Scattered Rx = Y >>>> @@ -19,6 +20,7 @@ Unicast MAC filter = Y >>>> RSS hash = Y >>>> RSS key update = Y >>>> RSS reta update = Y >>>> +SR-IOV = Y >>> >>> Can you please explain what is exactly supported? Like can DPDK drive both >>> PF & VF? >> Yes. The PMD does not distinguish between PFs and VFs. >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> @@ -7,15 +7,16 @@ IONIC Driver >>>> The ionic driver provides support for Pensando server adapters. >>>> It currently supports the below models: >>>> -- `Naples DSC-25 >>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples-25_ProductBrief_10-2019.pdf >>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples-25_ProductBrief_10-2019.pdf>>`_ >>>> -- `Naples DSC-100 >>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples_100_ProductBrief-10-2019.pdf >>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples_100_ProductBrief-10-2019.pdf>>`_ >>>> +- DSC-25 dual-port 25G Distributed Services Card >>>> +- DSC-100 dual-port 100G Distributed Services Card >>>> >>> >>> Same comment from previous version, can you provide link for these devices, >>> it is hard to find the devices from the main site. >> And my same response from your previous comment. I do not control the >> website and do not wish to put stale PDF links in this document, which will >> live forever. The text includes the URL of the page containing links to the >> PDFs. Why is this not acceptable? > > The request is to put links to the products that you are providing the driver > for. This is to help people that are already interested your driver and > reading your driver document, to reach to the product information easily. > > The request is NOT to provide pdf etc, just a reference to the product. Don't > you advertise your product in your official web site? If your product > information is not visible/hidden, why you are providing the open source > drivers for it? Does this line in the doc not satisfy your request? +The `Documents <https://pensando.io/documents/ <https://pensando.io/documents/>>`_ page contains Product Briefs and other product information. -Andrew
