[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] doc: document NIC features
Wiles, Keith
keith.wiles at intel.com
Fri Jul 7 16:20:33 CEST 2017
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:13 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/7/2017 3:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit:
>>> On 7/7/2017 2:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 07/07/2017 15:37, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>> On 7/7/2017 11:55 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>> Also some PMDs have few implementations of the datapath (like vector and
>>>>>> usual). Ideally
>>>>>> we need common way to highlight it. May be it is OK that control path
>>>>>> features are duplicated
>>>>>> in this case, but ideally it should be expressed somehow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree different datapath implementations can be documented better, I
>>>>> just don't know how to do ...
>>>>>
>>>>> For some drivers there are multiple vector implementations and the
>>>>> feature set for them is not clear. And as you said control features are
>>>>> duplicated in the table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps control and datapath features can be separated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or as Thomas suggested sometime ago, vector and scalar version can be
>>>>> merged into one in the table and feature can be marked as supported if
>>>>> both scalar and vector has support for it. But this is not solving
>>>>> multiple vector implementation problem.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is the way to go.
>>>> The features should not be different from a datapath implementation to
>>>> another one. So they must be merged in only one column.
>>>> If a feature is not supported in every datapaths of a driver, it should
>>>> be marked as partially supported... and the developers must implement it.
>>>
>>> But for example for i40e, there are altivec, neon and sse vector
>>> implementations, how should we document this?
>>
>> They are all only one i40 driver. It should offer the same features
>> regardless of the platform it runs on.
>> So it should be only one column in the table.
>
> If one platform does not implements a feature, it will cause feature
> will be documented as partial independent from other platform's status,
> this is unfair for the ones implemented it.
+1
If a single PMD supports different platforms, then we need to be able to identify these NICs plus show the features.
Having multiple lines in a table is not difficult and helps identify exactly what is supported on all platforms.
Regards,
Keith
More information about the dev
mailing list