From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:48:16 +0000 Message-ID: <20170116164816.GA25960@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1484308202-5198-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <29aed2ee-78a9-05d5-b684-01f7b62d10f9@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alejandro Lucero , dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8209DE5 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:48:45 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29aed2ee-78a9-05d5-b684-01f7b62d10f9@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:43:11PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD > > support was not the default option before. This was just for making > > people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a > > BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support. > > Although NFP will compile fine, as far as I understand BSP dependency is > still there. > > Thomas, > > What do you think, is compilation enough to be enabled by default? > > > Although you haven't asked me, I think having it compiled by default is ok, even if you can't run it without the BSP. Having it compiled means that we can catch errors or problems with the driver sooner, e.g. when doing updates across all drivers. /Bruce