[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v16 1/3] build: disable/enable drivers in Arm builds

[Juraj Linkeš]

<removed parts which I think are not that relevant>

> > > > > > > > The blocklist is, I think, agreed upon by everyone. The
> > > > > > > > question is whether we want to support the allowlist
> > > > > > > > alongside it and there seem to be enough reasons to do that.
> > > > > > > Sorry, may be this is answered already, but, what additional
> > > > > > > benefit does allowlist provide over the blocklist?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > VPP could use it:
> > > > > > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=vpp.git;a=blob;f=build/externa
> > > > > > l/pa
> > > > > > ckag es/dpdk
> > > > > > .mk;h=c35ac84c27b19411a0cfdf9a3524fdf36024762c;hb=HEAD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're disabling almost everything so an allowlist would fit there.
> > > > > > And they won't need to update the list when a new driver is
> > > > > > added (which they won't need).
> > > > > This is different from how we started this discussion. The
> > > > > current discussion was for DPDK internal use. But the one you
> > > > > are referencing above is for users of DPDK. I am fine for
> > > > > providing the allow list for the users of DPDK. But for DPDK
> > > > > internal, I think block list is
> > > enough.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's an interesting suggestion. Jerin, what do you think? Why
> > > > did you
> > > want to have an allowlist? Would this work?
> > >
> > > # The very reason why VPP chooses to have allow list so that they
> > > can control what needs to include.
> > > # Another use case is like, in SoCs have fixed internal devices, we
> > > can have optimized build for that can have only allow list of the
> > > drivers that care about # For server market, block list makes sense
> > > # For embedded SoC, allow list makes sense.
> > For the embedded SoC, IMO, the upstream project could allow the compilation
> for wider set of PMDs/libs. May be the end customer can use the allow list to
> compile/use what is required?
> 
> Just to understand, how end customer can enable allow list, if DPDK build system
> does not support it?
> Also to understand, If we are supporting blocklist, why not have allowlist (I
> mean, both of them) as both are required as it caters different use case as
> mention above. We can not emulate allowlist with blocklist as each version of
> DPDK will have new libraries and PMD's which end user has no clue. Right?

> I think, that is the reason why VPP is doing the allow list.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but to clarify, VPP likely would be using the allowlist in this fashion, but that is not an arm specific usecase. I think what Honnappa wanted to see was how the allowlist could be used in an arm usecase (such as using it in an SoC configuration).