From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16676A00BE; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:52:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB60D406B4; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:52:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6812C4069D for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:52:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3245C00DB; Tue, 10 May 2022 04:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 May 2022 04:52:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1652172739; x= 1652259139; bh=oORR5yLCicSko50/mrKBMoIgVmuVB+xM+bobkhGDeJY=; b=d XLjcGaZXNSD4yR56SH3W3wIa1/Sacy7dwuQGOld9xy3Xv+nu+MobL6qzuym2dumB Z2+hscTuY6xB3TAF8jy4qjjOVggKWNBWDFlGxbzUgNBKRSJJUbzd+xb8RySq4LuB l33Bg9OgXOybhlZG9gxLnLMD1JRyMUZbU1rqWhpLcxbGkmAYUYBOmKE5NmzW2GGu GEy3570VcWr7oxJtcpdpcLqLtfDR/DXaix93WXY74u/qBFs+kncvuUe4BZ/XNUkl tYX4z+pgI2COEV0BJpLbV48BbbAJCU/aPmBOspak0juLtE0iqsIZbM4W59QmIpDH mp2o6hxbrH4QwcC7rV47w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1652172739; x=1652259139; bh=oORR5yLCicSko 50/mrKBMoIgVmuVB+xM+bobkhGDeJY=; b=mEaB08bAjb9nREucxpLeG1Kio2WYA xyD+GAgB7tT5tgkl1xBt/29BQcHP6dyFr7z94lgaI7EM5HnxIut+PTA1rAmO4Ib1 tQOBHk4jYQEhfVjeZySrElpbEITjIhHcMqabg0NoxEPCiXEdrK8e0oqDzPT5Fgy0 jsl1X2Rjhh5/coxqHfI/zvPrAlJ4JDEd/V0b0amHWWX8aZqt6OHBtfaGZsMNTGtj v/SmQCEcl2lx/38ae3VzFgvqvuzU5Nd/2U+ka6+knQCe10s3fByxOIcrFxaji+Sx kup1h/x3AWDJEFi8UPULEk95BEFLMYz+cqxLWDUgtY+2GnrI3TLa4Ky0g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrgedugddthecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddtieek gfekudehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 10 May 2022 04:52:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Tom Rix , "gakhil@marvell.com" , "Chautru, Nicolas" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Kinsella, Ray" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "Zhang, Mingshan" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] baseband/acc100: introduce PMD for ACC101 Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 10:52:15 +0200 Message-ID: <2368406.jE0xQCEvom@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1651083423-33202-1-git-send-email-nicolas.chautru@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 09/05/2022 23:23, Chautru, Nicolas: > From: Tom Rix > > A quick look at acc100.rst and the bulk of acc101.rst looks the same. > > Consider a user of the acc100 is upgrading to acc101, they will > > want to know what is the same and what has changed and test accordingly. > > These two documents should be combined. > > Well in term of documentation, for the users it helps to be able to follow steps as they are for a given variant. > As opposed to have to have multiple options through the document when using ACC100 vs ACC101. > Except if they are other objections, I would see this more useful for the user as is and less source of errors. I agree with Tom, it is more useful to highlight the differences with some notes and keep a common tutorial.