From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] doc: document NIC features Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:57:16 +0100 Message-ID: <1f389cf5-ed5d-0768-ab91-76f458a0c219@intel.com> References: <20170622190233.67933-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <8a981e9a-2215-a2ae-cb75-5982fd714845@solarflare.com> <8948822.3HyaHf9bfD@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , John McNamara , dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369472C8 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:57:19 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <8948822.3HyaHf9bfD@xps> Content-Language: en-US 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 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?