• Commit the ice_ddp package in a separate commit

So, it sounds like it'd be preferred to use (void)0 instead of using an empty stub?

Is this going to get committed?

• Actually make the new ice_vlan_mode.c file that was added

• ice: Update to 0.28.1-k from 0.28.0-k, restore changes made by non-Intel commits

I also need to make other changes to this, too.

portlint output:

Yeah, I think the rest of this looks good.

In D26383#587216, @skozlov wrote:

MAX_NETMAP_OSVERSION=   1199999  # Doesn't build w/NETMAP on 12

@erj, is it still true?

Rebase with upstream with fixed package file.

poudriere testport log:

portlint -AC output:

WARN: Makefile: NETMAP_AUTO is listed in OPTIONS_DEFINE, but no PORT_OPTIONS:MNETMAP_AUTO appears in this slave Makefile.  Make sure it appears in the master's Makefile.
WARN: Makefile: NETMAP_ON is listed in OPTIONS_DEFINE, but no PORT_OPTIONS:MNETMAP_ON appears in this slave Makefile.  Make sure it appears in the master's Makefile.
WARN: Makefile: NETMAP_OFF is listed in OPTIONS_DEFINE, but no PORT_OPTIONS:MNETMAP_OFF appears in this slave Makefile.  Make sure it appears in the master's Makefile.
WARN: Makefile: for new port, make $FreeBSD$ tag in comment section empty, to make SVN happy.
WARN: Makefile: new ports should not set PORTREVISION.
WARN: Makefile: new ports should not set PORTEPOCH.
FATAL: Makefile: extra item "BROKEN_armv6" placed in the LICENSE section.
1 fatal error and 6 warnings found.

Commit package file updates since Phabricator cannot handle them properly

arc patch does not work with this revision, probably because of this Phabricator issue: https://secure.phabricator.com/T9069

Remove ! characters from converted README

Convert DDP README from utf-16le/dos to utf-8/unix

In D26322#585095, @lwhsu wrote:

Why is sys/contrib/dev/ice/README a binary file?

Fix some files.

In D26276#584027, @mhorne wrote:

Hi, adding some Intel folks who have appeared on recent ixl(4) reviews/submissions.

I am attempting to upstream this patch from NetApp, who wrote it originally.
It seems that updates to these definitions usually come from upstream as part of
larger ixl driver updates, so forgive me if this is not the usual process.

Any updates on this?

New poudriere testport log:

New portlint output:

WARN: Makefile: for new port, make $FreeBSD$ tag in comment section empty, to make SVN happy.
0 fatal errors and 1 warning found.

In D26118#580232, @mat wrote:

In D26118#579726, @erj wrote:

Output from portlint -AC:

WARN: Makefile: for new port, make $FreeBSD$ tag in comment section empty, to make SVN happy.
WARN: Makefile: "IGNORE_DragonFly" has to appear earlier.
WARN: Makefile: "ONLY_FOR_ARCHS" has to appear earlier.
WARN: Makefile: "ONLY_FOR_ARCHS_REASON" has to appear earlier.
0 fatal errors and 4 warnings found.

Please do fix those warnings. The reference for how to write a Makefile is available there https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-order.html

Edit Makefile to make portlint happy

I've attached the poudriere testport log:

portlint -AC output:

WARN: Makefile: for new port, make $FreeBSD$ tag in comment section empty, to make SVN happy.
WARN: Makefile: unless this is a master port, PORTNAME has to be set by "=", not by "?=".
WARN: Makefile: unless this is a master port, PORTVERSION has to be set by "=", not by "?=".
WARN: Makefile: new ports should not set PORTREVISION.
WARN: Makefile: unless this is a master port, MAINTAINER has to be set by "=", not by "?=".
WARN: Makefile: unless this is a master port, COMMENT has to be set by "=", not by "?=".
WARN: Makefile: "ONLY_FOR_ARCHS" has to appear earlier.
WARN: Makefile: "ONLY_FOR_ARCHS_REASON" has to appear earlier.
0 fatal errors and 8 warnings found.

@jacob.e.keller_intel.com do you maybe have any thoughts on this, too?

The latter nvm related functions can be removed immediately; these have been removed in a newer version of the driver.

Is someone else going to take over? Is this still something worthwhile to pursue? It seems like it based on the latest comments.

How did you find this? Do you have something automated that checks for this?

I committed this in rS361992.

This description looks better; thanks.

Before I commit this, I'd like to have a better description of the changes that are going into this patch; I see there are changes around Recovery Mode support, but I'd like things like significant bugs or feature additions to be called out since this is pretty large.