Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] doc: add mempool and octeontx mempool device

From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: santosh <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>,
	John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com,
	jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com,
	ferruh.yigit@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] doc: add mempool and octeontx mempool device
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:45:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2831928.n80VB9rmku@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b50074a-f964-d1de-d3b9-0abcd9df68a8@caviumnetworks.com>

18/10/2017 14:17, santosh:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> 
> On Monday 09 October 2017 02:49 PM, santosh wrote:
> > On Monday 09 October 2017 02:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 09/10/2017 07:46, santosh:
> >>> On Monday 09 October 2017 10:31 AM, santosh wrote:
> >>>> Hi Thomas,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sunday 08 October 2017 10:13 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>> 08/10/2017 14:40, Santosh Shukla:
> >>>>>> This commit adds a section to the docs listing the mempool
> >>>>>> device PMDs available.
> >>>>> It is confusing to add a mempool guide, given that we already have
> >>>>> a mempool section in the programmer's guide:
> >>>>> 	http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/mempool_lib.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And we will probably need also some doc for bus drivers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it would be more interesting to create a platform guide
> >>>>> where you can describe the bus and the mempool.
> >>>>> OK for doc/guides/platform/octeontx.rst ?
> >>>> No Strong opinion,
> >>>>
> >>>> But IMO, purpose of introducing mempool PMD was inspired from
> >>>> eventdev, Which I find pretty organized.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, we have mempool_lib guide but that is more about common mempool
> >>>> layer details like api, structure layout etc.. I wanted
> >>>> to add guide which tells about mempool PMD's and their capability
> >>>> if any, thats why included octeontx as strarter and was thinking
> >>>> that other external-mempool PMDs like dpaa/dpaa2 , sw ring pmd may come
> >>>> later.
> >> Yes sure it is interesting.
> >> The question is to know if mempool drivers make sense in their own guide
> >> or if it's better to group them with all related platform specifics.
> > I vote for keeping them just like Eventdev/cryptodev, 
> > has vendor specific PMD's under one roof.. (has both s/w and hw).
> 
> To be clear and move on to v3 for this patch:
> * Your proposition to mention about mempool block in dir struct like
> doc/guides/platform/octeontx.rst. 
> And right now we have more than one reference for octeontx.rst in dpdk
> example:
> ./doc/guides/nics/octeontx.rst --> NIC
> ./doc/guides/eventdevs/octeontx.rst --> eventdev device
> 
> Keeping above order in mind: My current proposal was to introduce doc like eventdev for mempool block.
> 
> So now, I am in two mind, Whether I opt your path If so then that should I remove all octeontx.rst reference from dpdk?

I think we must keep octeontx.rst in nics and eventdevs.

My proposal was to have a platform guide to give more explanations
about the common hardware and bus design.
Some infos for tuning Intel platforms are in the quick start guide,
and could be moved later in such a platform guide.

With this suggestion, we can include mempool drivers in the
platform guide as mempool is really specific to the platform.

I thought you agreed on it when talking on IRC.

> and bundle them under one roof OR go by my current proposal.
> 
> Who'll take a call on that?

If you strongly feel that mempool driver is better outside,
you can make it outside in a mempool guide.
John do you have an opinion?