[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 02/13] net/ppfe: introduce ppfe net poll mode driver

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 11/4/2019 11:06 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:27:22AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/28/2019 5:18 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:32:35 +0530
>>> Gagandeep Singh <g.singh at nxp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- a/config/common_base
>>>> +++ b/config/common_base
>>>> @@ -224,6 +224,11 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CXGBE_DEBUG_TX=n
>>>>  CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CXGBE_DEBUG_RX=n
>>>>  CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CXGBE_TPUT=y
>>>>  
>>>> +#
>>>> +# Compile burst-oriented NXP PPFE PMD driver
>>>> +#
>>>> +CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PPFE_PMD=n
>>>
>>> This driver should use the common naming convention for Poll Mode Drivers.
>>>
>>> s/CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PPFE_PMD/CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_PPFE/
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately we have both as naming convention, and *unintentionally* it become
>> virtual ones PMD_XXXX (PMD_RING), physical ones (IXGBE_PMD),
>> although this PMD registers itself as virtual, it is a physical PMD and I think
>> exiting config option is good (PPFE_PMD).
>>
>> We can update config names to be consistent but not sure if it worth it,
>> changing name for users/costumers which may break their scripts, automation etc.
>> taking into account that it was like this since beginning,
>>
>> And now we are planning to switch to meson, these config option won't be used
>> directly, so I think we can keep them as they are.
> 
> ... and the meson default is PMD at the end as for physical PMDs.
> 

Does meson need them?
I was thinking these PMD build enable/disable configs will go away with meson.