>The issue is that the big header in question is the whole hardware/firmware >interface definition. The comments in it are the only publicly available >documentation on the hardware I'm aware of. > >The driver itself doesn't have a lot of optional features in it, it's the >header file that's too big.
The new files and driver code do these files really need to be in a patch format? Now the changes to current DPDK files must be a patch. If we can figure out how to tar up and then just add those files with a good comment would that be OK? Regards Keith > >On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> >wrote: > >> 2016-03-02 13:30, Stephen Hurd: >> > The bulk of the patch is the hardware interface header file. With all >> the >> > comments, it weighs in around 800k. If I strip the comments, it's around >> > 300k. If I both strip all the comments and remove all the currently >> unused >> > structures, I can get the entire patch down just below 300k, but that >> makes >> > it much harder for someone to do further development. I'm willing to do >> > that though if it's what's preferred. >> > >> > The other large file (560k) is just a bunch of extra debug output that >> > makes it easier to debug issues. It's normally not compiled, so it >> sounds >> > like it's not wanted either. >> >> If the code is not needed, it's obviously better to not submit it :) >> >> > I'll submit without comments in the hardware interface file and take it >> > from there. >> >> I don't think removing the comments is a good option. >> Please try to split per-feature to make it readable. >> You can check how fm10k was introduced as an example: >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.networking.dpdk.devel/13447 >> or mlx5: >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.networking.dpdk.devel/26986 >> > > > >-- >Stephen Hurd >Principal Engineer - Software Development >Broadcom Corporation >949-926-8039 >stephen.hurd at broadcom.com > Regards, Keith
