From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hemant Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mempool/dpaa2: add DPAA2 hardware offloaded mempool Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:24:40 +0530 Message-ID: <346d87ec-b57c-bc80-68b6-4ac9f76d48da@nxp.com> References: <1489754838-1455-2-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <21940728.tivBTtkBCF@xps13> <5f4fe240-8f17-0d4f-04b7-a8dd04b2c16e@intel.com> <1526541.obk11Y6NX2@xps13> <20170411145612.4bd8ed34@neon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ferruh Yigit , , To: Olivier MATZ , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02on0061.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.36.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBACDD148 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:54:48 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20170411145612.4bd8ed34@neon> 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 Thomas, On 4/11/2017 6:26 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:50:14 +0200 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 2017-04-11 09:39, Ferruh Yigit: >>> On 4/11/2017 8:50 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>> 2017-04-11 11:28, Hemant Agrawal: >>>>> On 4/11/2017 1:28 AM, Olivier MATZ wrote: >>>>>> Hemant Agrawal wrote: >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/bus/Makefile >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/bus/Makefile >>>>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,10 @@ include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> core-libs := librte_eal librte_mbuf librte_mempool librte_ring librte_ether >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_MEMPOOL),y) >>>>>>> +CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_FSLMC_BUS = $(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_MEMPOOL) >>>>>>> +endif >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> DIRS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_FSLMC_BUS) += fslmc >>>>>>> DEPDIRS-fslmc = ${core-libs} >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What's the purpose of this? >>>>>> Not sure we are allowed to modify the configs in the Makefiles. >>>>> >>>>> DPAA2_MEMPOOL will not work without the DPAA2 mempool hw instance >>>>> detected on FSLMC_BUS. >>>>> So, it is required that if you are enabling DPAA2_MEMPOOL, FSLMC_BUS is >>>>> to be enabled. >>>>> >>>>> Currently the config structure do not provide such dependency definitions. >>>>> >>>>> This was done based on the suggestions on the initial patches from >>>>> Ferruh and Jerin. >>>> >>>> Please do not do that. >>>> We do not change the configuration in the back of the user. >>>> This kind of dependency should be managed in the configuration step >>>> which do not exist yet. >>>> >>>> You can use $(error) to stop the compilation instead. >>> >>> As Hemant mentioned, this was my suggestion. There is a configuration >>> dependency here, that we don't have a way to resolve in dpdk. >>> >>> If one of the end leaf selected, it makes sense to me to auto select >>> dependent pieces. >> >> A dependency must be solved at configuration time with appropriate >> user notification. >> For now, we just check them at compilation time and throw an error. > At present, we have removed the config dependency check from the code and sent the new patch sets. I am not sure about error part. I will experiment on it and send patches over these patches. This should not block the existing patches. > Yes, a good reason for not doing this is because the "make config" > generates a rte_config.h file. Changing a configuration option at > one place in a Makefile makes configuration inconsistent. > > I don't think it's a blocker issue for the patch integration. > > Regards, > Olivier > >