[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/41] Introduce NXP DPAA Bus, Mempool and PMD

[Shreyansh Jain]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for comments. I will reply soon to those on v3 as well.

On Friday 22 September 2017 03:40 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 09/09/2017 13:20, Shreyansh Jain:
>> DPAA, or Datapath Acceleration Architecture [R2], is a set of hardware
>> components designed for high-speed network packet processing. This
>> architecture provides the infrastructure to support simplified sharing of
>> networking interfaces and accelerators by multiple CPU cores, and the
>> accelerators themselves.
>>
>> This patchset introduces the following:
>> 1. DPAA Bus (drivers/bus/dpaa)
>>   The core of DPAA bus is implemented using 3 main hardware blocks: QMan,
>>   or Queue Manager; BMan, or Buffer Manager and FMan, or Frame Manager.
>>   The patches introduce necessary layers to expose the DPAA hardware
>>   blocks for interfacing with RTE framework.
> 
> I guess these are the same blocks as for DPAA2?
> They are in drivers/bus/fslmc/
> Why introducing yet another bus driver?
> The fslmc one was supposed to cover any Freescale (NXP (Qualcomm)) SoC.
> 
>> 2. DPAA Mempool (drivers/mempool/dpaa)
>>   BMan, or Buffer Manager, block of DPAA features a hardware offloaded
>>   mempool. These patches add support for a driver to manage the BMan
>>   block. This driver allows for mempool creation, deletion, buffer
>>   acquire and release, as per the RTE APIs.
>>
>> 3. DPAA PMD (drivers/net/dpaa)
>>   The Poll Mode Driver for DPAA NIC Interfaces.
>>
>> Patch Layout
>> ============
>>
>> 01: Add DPAA SoC build configuration
>> 02~16: Add DPAA Bus support and features, incrementally
>> 17: Add Documentation
>> 18~21: Add DPAA Mempool support
>> 22~41: Add PMD and its various features, incrementally
> 
> It is a very long series introducing 3 different subsystems.
> I think everybody was scared about reviewing it.

Well, then Ferruh is quite a brave man - I got loads of comments from 
him. :D

> Why you did not split it?

All the components are serially orders. So, whether I split it into 
three separate series, or clearly separated in a single series - it 
would be same thing. Isn't it?

In fact, having three series, one dependent on other, looks more 
confusing to me. Personally, it would be difficult for me to review such 
patch series(s).

Still, if you and Ferruh think this split helps, I am OK. But, I don't 
want it look as if a new request has been made which cannot be completed 
within 17.11 window.