Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

ixl(4): Enable building driver on ARM64
ClosedPublic

Authored by kgalazka on Dec 18 2025, 4:33 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F142210376: D54289.id168457.diff
Sat, Jan 17, 7:10 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 10, 5:38 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 10, 5:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 10, 4:38 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 10, 4:25 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Jan 9, 7:46 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jan 8, 6:20 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Jan 7, 2:52 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

For consistency with other drivers enable building ixl
on ARM64 target.

Please be advised that it is only compile tested.
Intel will continue to test Ethernet drivers only on x86-64
platforms, and is not going to provide support for issues,
which cannot be reproduced in such environment.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Galazka <krzysztof.galazka@intel.com>

Suggested-by: Dave Cottlehuber <dch@FreeBSD.org>
Sponsored by: Intel Corporation

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

manu requested changes to this revision.Dec 18 2025, 4:42 PM

Maybe start with enabling the module for arm64 ?
It's unlikely that anyone will test adding the driver to their kernel config if they didn't tested with the module before.
Also I don't see why anyone would want the driver in the kernel if a module exists.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Dec 18 2025, 4:42 PM

Enable building the driver as a module.

Approving as mentor, wait for @manu to re-review before commiting

manu requested changes to this revision.Sat, Dec 20, 11:14 AM

Since the module will be built for all arch why not adding the config to sys/conf/files directly ? It's already present in files.amd64 and files.powerpc and now you're adding this to files.arm64, it doesn't make sense.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Sat, Dec 20, 11:14 AM

The module will build only on 64-bit arch (amd64 and powerpc64 was already there, this patch adds arm64). I don't think it was ever tested on 32-bits, and I don't have too many spare cycles to look into that.

The module will build only on 64-bit arch (amd64 and powerpc64 was already there, this patch adds arm64). I don't think it was ever tested on 32-bits, and I don't have too many spare cycles to look into that.

Ah yes indeed I've missed that.
Looks like we should have a files.64 for cases like this.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Tue, Dec 23, 7:33 AM

I'd still be tempted to put it in files and just spike 32bit builds. Sure, you can put it in the config file and yhe error is delayed until you build, but that's ok imho. Lots of things in files that don't work evertwhere. No need for a files.64.

In D54289#1242003, @imp wrote:

I'd still be tempted to put it in files and just spike 32bit builds. Sure, you can put it in the config file and yhe error is delayed until you build, but that's ok imho. Lots of things in files that don't work evertwhere. No need for a files.64.

That's also fine with me.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.