From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D2E235 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:13:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jul 2017 07:13:54 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,323,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="1169883431" 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 07:13:52 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , John McNamara , dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz References: <20170622190233.67933-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <8948822.3HyaHf9bfD@xps> <1f389cf5-ed5d-0768-ab91-76f458a0c219@intel.com> <1676793.i6e7ich7X3@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:13:52 +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: <1676793.i6e7ich7X3@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 14:13:55 -0000 On 7/7/2017 3:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 07/07/2017 15:57, Ferruh Yigit: >> 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? > > They are all only one i40 driver. It should offer the same features > regardless of the platform it runs on. > So it should be only one column in the table. If one platform does not implements a feature, it will cause feature will be documented as partial independent from other platform's status, this is unfair for the ones implemented it.