Re: [dpdk-dev] Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2021-Oct-27

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 7:55 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli
<Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > 1) Go ahead with both approaches as experimental lib/drivers inside
> > > DPDK
> >
> > Now that there is approval from TB.
> >
> > I would like to ask, Is anyone planning to review the specification header file
> > [1]?
> I plan to, but need some time. With the holiday approaching, things are busy.

Thanks. I request to check top-level semantics in specification header
files as the first step.
Other next-level details, we can change at any time.
If you planning for any time frame, do let me know, so that we can
decide when to start
the implementation.

>
> >
> > There was a comment to remove the TLV length. I will do that next version with
> > implementation.
> >
> > Identified the following set of work for this.
> >
> > 1) Common code at lib/dwa/
> > 2) Marvell DPU based driver at drivers/dwa/cnxk/
> > 3) Test application at app/test-dwa/
> > 4) It is possible to have an SW driver(To allow non-specialized HW to use the
> > framework) for this by:
> > a) Emulate DWA HW as a separate DPDK process
> > b) Add drivers/dwa/sw/ and use memif driver so to create a communication
> > channel between emulated DWA HW process and DPDK application.
> Why use memif driver? Why not ring-pmd?

Planning to emulation DWA accelerator functional model as a separate
DPDK process in SW case.
Therefore memif is the ideal choice as it supports zero-copy of the
data as well.
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/memif.html

>
> > c) Add drivers/dwa/sw/profiles//l3fwd - To implement l3fwd profile using DPDK
> > libraries for SW driver.
> >
> > I think, Item (4) aka SW drivers as useful(We don't need to implement for all
> > profiles, I think, just for  l3fwd it make sense to add, to allow to use of the
> > framework in just SW mode).
> > Is there any opinion on adding item (4) in DPDK? I saw mixed opinions earlier on
> > this. I would like to understand, Is there any objection to doing
> > item(4) in DPDK as it needs a good amount of work and  I don't want to do
> > throw it away if the community doesn't like this.
> > Any opinion?
> >
> > [1]
> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-October/226070.html
> >
> <snip>