On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:06 PM Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:46:15AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:52:27 -0700, Catherine Sullivan wrote: > > > > > +if NET_VENDOR_GOOGLE > > > > > + > > > > > +config GVE > > > > > + tristate "Google Virtual NIC (gVNIC) support" > > > > > + depends on (PCI_MSI && X86) > > > > > > > > We usually prefer for drivers not to depend on the platform unless > > > > really necessary, but IDK how that applies to the curious new world > > > > of NICs nobody can buy :) > > > > > > This is the only platform it will ever need to run on so we would really > > > prefer to not have to support others :) > > > > I think the motivation is partially to force the uniform use of generic > > APIs across the drivers, so that re-factoring of core code is easier. > > Do you have any specific pain-points in mind where x86 dependency > > simplifies things? If not I think it's a better default to not have it. > > Not a big deal, though. > > And maybe sometime in the future you might want to put this interface > in an ARM64 server? > > One 'pain-paint' is that the driver might assume cache-coherency, > which is an x86 thing. If the generic APIs have been used, it should > not be an issue, but i've not spent the time to see if the DMA API has > been used correctly. > > Andrew
Mostly it is just hesitation around lack of testing. But I've done a few quick compile tests and ARM and ARM64 don't seem to have any problems so I've removed the dependency in v3.
