[PATCH v3 12/27] net/nfp: refact the hwinfo module

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 9/18/2023 2:39 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 9:46 PM
>> To: Chaoyong He <chaoyong.he at corigine.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: oss-drivers <oss-drivers at corigine.com>; Niklas Soderlund
>> <niklas.soderlund at corigine.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/27] net/nfp: refact the hwinfo module
>>
>> On 9/15/2023 10:15 AM, Chaoyong He wrote:
>>> Move the definition of data structure and macro into the implement file.
>>>
>>
>> What is the motivation for this move, I can see same is done in multiple other
>> patches?
>> Header file is still included by .c file, what is the benefit of moving from header
>> to .c file?
> 
> We try to make the interface between modules as small as possible.
> 
> We meet some problem when we add new features, too much content in the header files make it difficult to form a identify dependencies among modules.
> When we try to add a new data field in a structure or add a new data type in one header file, we had to modify many unrelated files just because it includes this header file, it's not good.
> 
> This is the direct motivation for this move, this will make the development easier.>

If you can move a struct or data type to .c file, it means it is not
shared so updating it should not cause change anyway.

I am not against it, but I didn't get your reasoning.
When there are 'nfp_hwinfo.c' and 'nfp_hwinfo.h' files, I think that is
reasonable to have "nfp_hwinfo*" macros and structs in the .h file, it
looks like you want to separate data structures that are shared and ones
that are only used by 'nfp_hwinfo.c' but I am not sure how it helps.

Anyway if you know what you are doing, it is OK, I just want to double
check if this is done on purpose.