From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369472C8 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:57:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2017 06:57:18 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,323,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="1169876623" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.91]) ([10.237.220.91]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2017 06:57:16 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , John McNamara , dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz References: <20170622190233.67933-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <8a981e9a-2215-a2ae-cb75-5982fd714845@solarflare.com> <8948822.3HyaHf9bfD@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <1f389cf5-ed5d-0768-ab91-76f458a0c219@intel.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:57:16 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8948822.3HyaHf9bfD@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] doc: document NIC features X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 13:57:19 -0000 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?