On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:32 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> Call for action below (especially for octeontx2 and virtio): > > 24/03/2020 09:36, Andrew Rybchenko: > > On 3/20/20 2:15 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > >> 20/03/2020 06:35, Zhang, Qi Z: > > >>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > >>>> > > >>>> This series aims to clean-up the big table of ethdev features: > > >>>> http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/overview.html#id1 > > >>>> > > >>>> We could reorganize the information in this table, maybe split it or > > >>>> add/remove some rows. > > >>>> Before going to such reorganization, we should clean it up. > [...] > > >>>> More columns can be removed by merging PF/VF and vector datapaths. > > >>>> If a feature cannot be supported in all cases, it should be marked > > >>>> as partially supported (P). > > I see that Intel merged "vec" columns for its PMDs. > We are still missing octeontx2 and virtio. > In order to make sure the message is received, > I suggest blocking any patch in these PMDs until features matrix is fixed. > > > > >>>> If a feature is PF-specific (like flow control), that's OK to mark > > >>>> it fully supported because it's obviously impossible for VF. > > >>>> There are also some features which were probably marked in some > > >>>> columns and missed in its VF or vector counterpart. > > Ideally we should remove all these columns (VF to be discussed): > > > >>>> - cxgbevf > > >>>> - fm10k_vf > > >>>> - hns3_vf > > >>>> - i40e_vf > > >>>> - igb_vf > > >>>> - ixgbe_vf > > >>>> - octeontx2_vec > > >>>> - octeontx2_vf > > >>>> - qede_vf > > >>>> - virtio_vec > > >>>> > > >>>> The total gain is to reduce the table size from 71 to 47 columns. > > >>> > > >>> I agree to remove all the column with "vec", since vector PMD can be > > >>> regarded as a feature of the a PMD. > > >>> But I'm not sure if it is a good idea to merge VF and PF into one > column. > > >>> From my view, for intel device, VF driver and PF driver just share > the code, > > >>> but they actually are running at two different context. > > >>> And likely they will support different feature, merge into one > column may > > >>> confuse our customer if they want to understand what exactly the PMD > > >>> support. > > >> > > >> I understand you have 2 different datapaths. > > >> My arguments are: > > >> - it is the same NIC > > > > > > Yes, but one device can be polymorphic, ideally i40e and i40evf > > > could be in two different folder, and the common part can be a > > > library in driver/common/i40e. > [...] > > > > >> - you cannot summarize everything in a table > > >> - we have two many columns to make it readable > > > > > > I don't think columns number is critical, typically user just need > > > to focus on the first column and the specific driver's column, > > > > Too many columns still makes it harder to read/analyze. I think > > the main goal of the table is too help making NIC choice to > > be installed in a server and you can't make a choice between > > PF and VF. Difference between PF and VF capabilities is > > a separate story and out-of-scope of the table. > > We have a new driver(s) in each DPDK release and table is > > already big and will grow more and more. > > > > > I guess it may not a big challenge to enable some filter by front end > web technique? > +1 > > > > > >> I think the right solution is mark features as partially available > (P), and give > > >> details in the driver guide documentation. > > Other opinions about removing/merging VF columns? > PF and VF devices can have different feature support. It will be good to keep them separate. If it is difficult to tabulate the capabilities for various devices in a single page, then marking it with (P) is fine. The Driver guide should carry the differences between PF and VF capabilities anyway.
