On 07/12/2021 11:01, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 12/7/2021 7:39 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:05 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
On 12/6/2021 8:35 AM, jer...@marvell.com wrote:
From: Jerin Jacob<jer...@marvell.com>
As per the deprecation notice, In the view of enabling unified driver
for octeontx2(cn9k)/octeontx3(cn10k), removing drivers/octeontx2
drivers and replace with drivers/cnxk/ which
supports both octeontx2(cn9k) and octeontx3(cn10k) SoCs.
This patch does the following
- Replace drivers/common/octeontx2/ with drivers/common/cnxk/
- Replace drivers/mempool/octeontx2/ with drivers/mempool/cnxk/
- Replace drivers/net/octeontx2/ with drivers/net/cnxk/
- Replace drivers/event/octeontx2/ with drivers/event/cnxk/
- Replace drivers/crypto/octeontx2/ with drivers/crypto/cnxk/
- Rename config/arm/arm64_octeontx2_linux_gcc as
config/arm/arm64_cn9k_linux_gcc
- Update the documentation and MAINTAINERS to reflect the same.
- Change the reference to OCTEONTX2 as OCTEON 9. The kernel related
documentation is not accounted for this change as kernel documentation
still uses OCTEONTX2.
Depends-on: series-20804 ("common/cnxk: add REE HW definitions")
Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob<jer...@marvell.com>
---
MAINTAINERS | 37 -
app/test/meson.build | 1 -
app/test/test_cryptodev.c | 7 -
app/test/test_cryptodev.h | 1 -
app/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c | 17 -
app/test/test_eventdev.c | 8 -
config/arm/arm64_cn10k_linux_gcc | 1 -
...teontx2_linux_gcc => arm64_cn9k_linux_gcc} | 3 +-
config/arm/meson.build | 10 +-
devtools/check-abi.sh | 4 +
doc/guides/cryptodevs/features/octeontx2.ini | 87 -
doc/guides/cryptodevs/index.rst | 1 -
doc/guides/cryptodevs/octeontx2.rst | 188 -
doc/guides/dmadevs/cnxk.rst | 2 +-
doc/guides/eventdevs/features/octeontx2.ini | 30 -
doc/guides/eventdevs/index.rst | 1 -
doc/guides/eventdevs/octeontx2.rst | 178 -
doc/guides/mempool/index.rst | 1 -
doc/guides/mempool/octeontx2.rst | 92 -
doc/guides/nics/cnxk.rst | 4 +-
doc/guides/nics/features/octeontx2.ini | 97 -
doc/guides/nics/features/octeontx2_vec.ini | 48 -
doc/guides/nics/features/octeontx2_vf.ini | 45 -
doc/guides/nics/index.rst | 1 -
doc/guides/nics/octeontx2.rst | 465 ---
doc/guides/nics/octeontx_ep.rst | 4 +-
doc/guides/platform/cnxk.rst | 12 +
.../octeontx2_packet_flow_hw_accelerators.svg | 2804 --------------
.../img/octeontx2_resource_virtualization.svg | 2418 ------------
doc/guides/platform/index.rst | 1 -
doc/guides/platform/octeontx2.rst | 520 ---
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 17 -
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_19_08.rst | 12 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_19_11.rst | 6 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_02.rst | 8 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_05.rst | 4 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_08.rst | 6 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_20_11.rst | 8 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_02.rst | 10 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst | 6 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_11.rst | 2 +-
Not sure about updating old release notes files, using 'octeontx2' still can
make
sense for the context of those releases.
OK. I will send v2 with keeping octeontx2 in OLD release notes.
Not related with this set specifically, a more general question about updating
old release notes.
For me release notes should be frozen with the release and shouldn't be updated
at all afterwards, but there is no agreement on this and in practice old release
notes are updated.
My question is, is there any benefit to keep a separate release notes file for
each release, and need to maintain old ones.
What about having a single release file, 'release.rst', and reset it after each
release?
I think there is a benefit to keeping them all - you can quickly
look/grep through the files for multiple releases. e.g. if you wanted to
check when a driver/feature was added etc. I agree it doesn't make sense
to update them, unless there was a mistake at the time of release.
