On 09/19/2014 02:10 PM, Mike Holmes wrote: > My 2 cents > > Repos: > > * A private SoCs implementation such as Axxia, Cavium, Freescale are > already separate repos, why should public ones be different ? > * When you pull you only get the implementation you want, you don't > get others for "free" i.e. if I want KS2 and I don't care about DPDK > I don't get DPDK
Sure that's a vendor's choice to open implementation or not, but IMO ODP community should encourage opening/upstreaming. There is no difference for closed implementation. Master branch contains only linux-generic in any case. No other "free" stuff. > Branch: > > * All in one place for public variants - more open source, but ODP is > not pure open source, a lot of members never will be. Never say never :) > I think the strongest argument is for keeping it all working the same > way so I vote for separate repos > > So a 1.0 is called for when linux-generic meets these requirements > - The API feature set has been agreed by SC <- by necessity all > platforms who are Members of ODP get to define this > > I suspect this step will ensure the API is acceptable to all, > even if not complete on all platforms (as we just experienced with crypto) > - The doxygen documentation is complete > - The unit tests all pass > - The code builds for all variants of linux-generic, currently the only > variant is netmap > > Then DPDK, KS2, Axxia, Octeon all catch up when they also pass those > same test criteria. That's exactly the point I've tried to emphasize: linux-generic is not completely independent from other platforms. v1.0 can't be fixed just when linux-generic is ready, because there is a chance that some API may not work nicely for accelerated platforms and need to be tweaked a bit. So first it should be like v1.0-rc and when at least several platforms pulled that tag and successfully implemented it, then mark it as v1.0. _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
