From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Joseph, Anoob" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/33] config: add Cavium OcteonTX crypto PMD skeleton Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:43:38 +0530 Message-ID: <23e3b8a8-32f9-cd91-bef9-c03eff0d4e46@caviumnetworks.com> References: <1528476325-15585-1-git-send-email-anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> <1536033560-21541-1-git-send-email-ajoseph@caviumnetworks.com> <1536033560-21541-2-git-send-email-ajoseph@caviumnetworks.com> <8421735d-1357-e444-9924-390f23827f3e@nxp.com> <95e172a1-2f81-3e8f-7fba-8373e64428d8@caviumnetworks.com> <06b2d39f-5d9a-d1e2-f3bb-5238e40e6406@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Ankur Dwivedi , Jerin Jacob , Narayana Prasad , dev@dpdk.org, Murthy NSSR , Nithin Dabilpuram , Ragothaman Jayaraman , Srisivasubramanian S , Tejasree Kondoj To: Akhil Goyal , Anoob Joseph , Pablo de Lara , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr690070.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.69.70]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DBA1B079 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:28:29 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <06b2d39f-5d9a-d1e2-f3bb-5238e40e6406@nxp.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Akhil, On 17-09-2018 17:50, Akhil Goyal wrote: > External Email > > On 9/17/2018 5:12 PM, Joseph, Anoob wrote: > >> Hi Akhil, >> On 17-09-2018 16:07, Akhil Goyal wrote: >>> External Email >>>>> I think it would be better to squash the makefile related changes in >>>>> the 3/33 patch as the code >>>>> is actually added in that and here the code is not getting compiled >>>>> here. >>>> So the changes in the following files has to be moved to patch 3/33? >>>>    drivers/crypto/Makefile >>>>    drivers/crypto/meson.build >>>>    drivers/crypto/octeontx/Makefile >>>>    drivers/crypto/octeontx/meson.build >>>>    mk/rte.app.mk >>>> I think this patch will just have MAINTAINER edit (even that might be >>>> required to be moved to 3/33?) & changes to config/common_base, after >>>> that. Is that fine? >>> In my opinion, you do not need this patch as separate one. >>> config/common_base can also be added in the 3/33. >> In that case 02/33 patch would become the first patch right? The same >> problem would be there too, I guess. The macros added in that patch gets >> used only in 03/33 patch. Is that fine? > > I think that would be fine. Better to have a 03/33 patch before 02/33 > if it doesn't have dependencies. 03/33 patch is dependent on 02/33 patch. Shall I proceed with merging 01/33 to 03/33 and make 02/33 the first patch? > >> The first patch would be a shell patch for most PMD additions. That's >> the reason we started this way. If you want it changed, will do so. >> Please do let me know what will be the right approach. > > For the makefiles, you would be compiling the empty files which does > not have any code. That does not make any sense to me. With 01/33 there won't be any files compiled. We are just adding the library (which would be empty) > > Normally, when we submit a new PMD, we add the basic PMD probe/remove > in the first patch and add it into build system. Maintainers is also > updated for the new PMD. > > Further ops are added later in the patchset. > > Hardware specific header files/ functions are added before they are > used in the driver in a single/multiple logical patches. > > In the end, documentation is added along with release note and > MAINTAINERS update for documentation files. I shall proceed with merging 01/33 to 03/33, if you can confirm making 02/33 the first patch is fine. Or please do let me know if you have any other suggestions. Anoob