Re: [PATCH v3] doc: document NIC features

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

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?