From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EB7A0524; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:14:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2751BFB2; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:14:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com (mail-io1-f65.google.com [209.85.166.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD632C02; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:14:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id c16so12952310ioh.6; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 22:14:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gGQcFxKYK/mSJRqhbWYK6S8BlHJXGiQQfJbupG/ZFzg=; b=I72ebJ2uyWa52ipnoWmVO4yhcQ/B8pNK/2UDDEEGASeyh46xUNd06fa3TrYuMnt3UM X57wTzk0IAN+q3ovm/qEu1n+H+NUq1wxLPXfZd3OjDTWpnQVglzhY53QUAFRSztZOrU5 VOaven8KFinOsBiHCZU0hI78+ywTdeYi2MUvRqSw4Zp4/Nvoi7siXRSaT1kovLW/SmtL 86lrt1hM3h6PMkgiY77XSx6BOKNODnR2xSIy5tcsLE+4VQaqIVxTSTbaS60eA0r6nod0 ra6DPxlS2ducegmoWcxRFs8SK+GkN5lK0crI1P+x9jAJA3DzunNGiUg6EXAAS1FCMas4 SZ1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gGQcFxKYK/mSJRqhbWYK6S8BlHJXGiQQfJbupG/ZFzg=; b=dA5wXtQTm3hEFhOsxYJMhXWvx2edRzkwkrLcJEeWTBQW9kINLjPEgZhu5f8SwYaP/z aZ0JUFkOLU7w1LW/u7+QqqAsqt6OpHbl4LGOWrd7vodJqH6xh4Qbo0S2ixZTaRLnFY8l s4h6Pz18cBxO0zVqVcCUeJhrICysaNSwBAxIUfvXhO676aeLpKPrBz99CYqC5lr6fp8o BtKk7SU9GPZZMfFll66bvwYju8iLitCKc2zTe7U42/DLPY1MuxMUSIvTGxU84IvdGy1L BrnoavD6KlCGIX1TMr+y9wK30wGCXezzfBDXLHuxMMinSRprf97FzqDNGE8CTgiIQAxC tQbg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBn7lBF46JLoyQvMjM/uoFhmdcqko6L1GVX5wJJwMbw446+1mh RCDZYO0hGmVW/VM6NbzXsVVUnuZGmiv8ATo2uQM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzdobs9628rGMmRZuAD/VePSoLvZOsusxccZ/tYBN5unHAPEy3672mZVpvUOJqJrQsbWw+sCmejKT+C5pnOZVE= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8e4d:: with SMTP id r13mr50390315ioo.60.1582611293742; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 22:14:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200131170201.3236153-1-jerinj@marvell.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:44:37 +0530 Message-ID: To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: "jerinj@marvell.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "pkapoor@marvell.com" , "ndabilpuram@marvell.com" , "kirankumark@marvell.com" , "pbhagavatula@marvell.com" , "pathreya@marvell.com" , "nsaxena@marvell.com" , "sshankarnara@marvell.com" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" , "Ajit Khaparde (ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com)" , "xiaolong.ye@intel.com" , "rasland@mellanox.com" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "Akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com" , "john.mcnamara@intel.com" , "bruce.richardson@intel.com" , "anatoly.burakov@intel.com" , Gavin Hu , "drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" , "pallavi.kadam@intel.com" , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "gage.eads@intel.com" , "nikhil.rao@intel.com" , "erik.g.carrillo@intel.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "artem.andreev@oktetlabs.ru" , "sthemmin@microsoft.com" , "shahafs@mellanox.com" , "keith.wiles@intel.com" , "mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com" , "jasvinder.singh@intel.com" , "vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com" , "mdr@ashroe.eu" , "techboard@dpdk.org" , nd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/5] graph: introduce graph subsystem 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:53 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > 2) Based on our experience, NPU HW accelerates are so different than one > > vendor to another vendor. Going forward, We believe, API abstraction may > > not be enough abstract the difference in HW. The Vendor-specific nodes can > > abstract the HW differences and reuse generic the nodes as needed. > > This would help both the silicon vendors and DPDK end users. > If you are proposing this as a new way to provide HW abstractions, then we will be restricting the application programming model to follow graph subsystem. IMO, the HW abstractions should be available irrespective of the programming model. > Graph model of packet processing might not be applicable for all use cases. No, I am not proposing this is the new way to provide HW abstraction in DPDK. API based HW abstraction will continue as it was done earlier.