Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] doc: update qede PMD guide

[Rasesh Mody <rmody@marvell.com>]

Hi Ferruh,

>From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 6:33 AM
>
>External Email
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>On 11/22/2019 7:51 AM, Rasesh Mody wrote:
>>  - Add note for Co-existence of DPDK and Linux drivers.
>>  - Update the firmware version in example.
>>  - Add Config note for potential error due to lack of memzone desciptor
>>    count.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rasesh Mody <rmody@marvell.com>
>> ---
>>  doc/guides/nics/qede.rst | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/qede.rst b/doc/guides/nics/qede.rst index
>> 2f4045795..9c14dd006 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/qede.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/qede.rst
>> @@ -70,6 +70,10 @@ Co-existence considerations
>>    to the PFs of a given adapter and either qede PMD or Linux drivers
>>    (qed and qede) can be bound to the VFs of the adapter.
>>
>> +- To use DPDK on some PFs and Linux drivers on other PFs of an
>> +adapter,
>> +  create a VF each on the PFs where DPDK will be used, attach DPDK to
>> +  these VFs and Linux drivers to the other PFs where no VFs are created.
>
>But this won't be using DPDK on some PFs, you are indeed suggesting to
>create VFs and use them via DPDK instead. And should the PF not bound to
>any kernel driver?

For sharing an adapter between DPDK and Linux drivers, we are suggesting to use DPDK on a VF created on PFs. All the PFs would be bound to Linux drivers(qed/qede). I'll send out a v2 with modified text for more clarity.

Thanks!
-Rasesh