[PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Alejandro Lucero]

Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
support was not the default option before. This was just for making
people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
---
 config/common_base      |  2 +-
 doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst | 10 ++++++----
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/config/common_base b/config/common_base
index 8e9dcfa..3fd62d6 100644
--- a/config/common_base
+++ b/config/common_base
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ENIC_DEBUG=n
 #
 # Compile burst-oriented Netronome NFP PMD driver
 #
-CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NFP_PMD=n
+CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NFP_PMD=y
 CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NFP_DEBUG=n
 
 #
diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst b/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst
index 4ef6e02..b643e5b 100644
--- a/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst
@@ -68,10 +68,12 @@ Building the software
 ---------------------
 
 Netronome's PMD code is provided in the **drivers/net/nfp** directory.
-Because Netronome´s BSP dependencies the driver is disabled by default
-in DPDK build using **common_linuxapp configuration** file. Enabling the
-driver or if you use another configuration file and want to have NFP
-support, this variable is needed:
+Although NFP PMD has Netronome´s BSP dependencies, it is possible to
+compile it along with other DPDK PMDs even if no BSP was installed before.
+Of course, a DPDK app will require such a BSP installed for using the
+NFP PMD.
+
+Default PMD configuration is at **common_linuxapp configuration** file:
 
 - **CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NFP_PMD=y**
 
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
> support was not the default option before. This was just for making
> people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
> BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.

Although NFP will compile fine, as far as I understand BSP dependency is
still there.

Thomas,

What do you think, is compilation enough to be enabled by default?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
<...>

Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Bruce Richardson]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:43:11PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
> > support was not the default option before. This was just for making
> > people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
> > BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.
> 
> Although NFP will compile fine, as far as I understand BSP dependency is
> still there.
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> What do you think, is compilation enough to be enabled by default?
> 
> > 
Although you haven't asked me, I think having it compiled by default is
ok, even if you can't run it without the BSP. Having it compiled means
that we can catch errors or problems with the driver sooner, e.g. when
doing updates across all drivers.

/Bruce

Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Alejandro Lucero]

My main concern is about distributions having a DPDK package without NFP
support.

Of course, distributions could make that package with NFP enabled, but I
prefer to avoid that.

There are other PMD enabled by default and it does not mean the NICs are
there.

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:43:11PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > > Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
> > > support was not the default option before. This was just for making
> > > people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
> > > BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.
> >
> > Although NFP will compile fine, as far as I understand BSP dependency is
> > still there.
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > What do you think, is compilation enough to be enabled by default?
> >
> > >
> Although you haven't asked me, I think having it compiled by default is
> ok, even if you can't run it without the BSP. Having it compiled means
> that we can catch errors or problems with the driver sooner, e.g. when
> doing updates across all drivers.
>
> /Bruce
>

Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Thomas Monjalon]

2017-01-16 16:48, Bruce Richardson:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:43:11PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > > Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
> > > support was not the default option before. This was just for making
> > > people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
> > > BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.
> > 
> > Although NFP will compile fine, as far as I understand BSP dependency is
> > still there.
> > 
> > Thomas,
> > 
> > What do you think, is compilation enough to be enabled by default?
> > 
> > > 
> Although you haven't asked me, I think having it compiled by default is
> ok, even if you can't run it without the BSP. Having it compiled means
> that we can catch errors or problems with the driver sooner, e.g. when
> doing updates across all drivers.

+1

(I suggested this change to Alejandro if I remember well)

Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
> support was not the default option before. This was just for making
> people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
> BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>

Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.

Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/17/2017 11:20 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
>> Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
>> support was not the default option before. This was just for making
>> people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
>> BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
> 
> Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.

This was breaking bsd build, patch updated to enable NFP only for Linux

Re: [PATCH] config: build nfp pmd support by default

[Alejandro Lucero]

Thanks!

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
wrote:

> On 1/17/2017 11:20 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 1/13/2017 11:50 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> >> Because using a NFP PMD requires specific BSP installed, the PMD
> >> support was not the default option before. This was just for making
> >> people aware of such dependency, since there is no need for such a
> >> BSP for just compiling DPDK with NFP PMD support.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
> >
> > Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.
>
> This was breaking bsd build, patch updated to enable NFP only for Linux
>
>