[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] doc: fix nfp multiport syntax

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Mon Apr 26 11:46:43 CEST 2021


On 4/23/2021 5:18 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/1/2021 1:45 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/25/2021 11:46 AM, Heinrich Kuhn wrote:
>>> From: "Chaoyong.He" <chaoyong.he at corigine.com>
>>>
>>> 1. Fixup the suffix of the PCI ID to be consistent with the code.
>>> 2. Add specification of using MAC address to identify port.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 979f2bae0 ("doc: improve multiport PF in nfp guide")
>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chaoyong.He <chaoyong.he at corigine.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Kuhn <heinrich.kuhn at netronome.com>
>>> ---
>>>   doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst | 14 +++++++++-----
>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst b/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst
>>> index fef99973b..2b170539d 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst
>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/nfp.rst
>>> @@ -117,15 +117,19 @@ although once they are created, DPDK apps should be 
>>> able to use them as normal
>>>   PCI ports.
>>>   NFP ports belonging to same PF can be seen inside PMD initialization with a
>>> -suffix added to the PCI ID: wwww:xx:yy.z_port_n. For example, a PF with PCI ID
>>> +suffix added to the PCI ID: wwww:xx:yy.z_portn. For example, a PF with PCI ID
>>>   0000:03:00.0 and four ports is seen by the PMD code as:
>>>      .. code-block:: console
>>> -      0000:03:00.0_port_0
>>> -      0000:03:00.0_port_1
>>> -      0000:03:00.0_port_2
>>> -      0000:03:00.0_port_3
>>> +      0000:03:00.0_port0
>>> +      0000:03:00.0_port1
>>> +      0000:03:00.0_port2
>>> +      0000:03:00.0_port3
>>> +
>>
>> +1 to fix.
>>
>>> +Some dpdk applications can choose to use the MAC address to identify ports,
>>> +OVS-DPDK is one such example, please refer to:
>>> +https://docs.openvswitch.org/en/latest/howto/dpdk/
>>
>> This is not PMD specific information, not sure to have here,
>> also not sure to have an external link here, basically for the maintenance 
>> concerns, should we document this usage withing DPDK in a wider than a PMD scope?
>>
> 
> Ping.
> 
> Will there be a new version?
> If not I can just get the fix part (s/port_n/portn).

Partially, for the fix part,
Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.


More information about the dev mailing list