Unfortunately no. On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Qiu, Michael <michael.qiu at intel.com> wrote:
> On 3/3/2016 7:11 AM, Stephen Hurd wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Thomas Monjalon < > thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> The comments in it are the only publicly available > >>> documentation on the hardware I'm aware of. > >> So you must keep the comments. > >> > > That's my goal, but the comments are well over the 300k limit. > > > > > >>> The driver itself doesn't have a lot of optional features in it, it's > the > >>> header file that's too big. > >> It is big because there are many different things. > >> You can split the file in different patches. > >> Examples: > >> - a patch for RSS will bring the hardware structures for RSS > >> - a patch for the stats will bring the hardware stats structures > >> etc > >> > > Should I split additional definitions/documentation that's not currently > > used in the driver as well? Or should it stay as only enough to document > > what the driver already does? > > > > The header file is expected to be publicly released in the future, so I > > tried to keep it as close to the original as possible. I'm not strongly > > attached to this approach, but it does make it easier to support future > > firmware releases. > > > > It's a fairly work-intensive project to deconstruct the existing driver > > into a series of small patches that work at each step, is this a hard > > requirement? (if so, I'd better get cracking) > > Does original header file has it's own commit log(like it in other > project)? If yes, it could make your life simpler. > > Thanks, > Michael > > PS: please answer inline > > Sorry, $work just switched us to GMail and I'm still learning the ropes. > > > > -- Stephen Hurd Principal Engineer - Software Development Broadcom Corporation 949-926-8039 stephen.hurd at broadcom.com
