Then I guess I should send another version of this patch. On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yigit, Ferruh > > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 12:08 PM > > To: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.luc...@netronome.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > > Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add doc about supported features > > > > On 12/2/2016 8:17 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.luc...@netronome.com> > > > --- > > > doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini > > b/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini > > > index d967151..dd78233 100644 > > > --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini > > > +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini > > > @@ -4,3 +4,28 @@ > > > ; Refer to default.ini for the full list of available PMD features. > > > ; > > > [Features] > > > +SR-IOV = Y > > > +Link status = Y > > > +Link status event = Y > > > +Rx interrupt = N > > > > Hi John, > > > > Do we support 'N'? Since this is the first 'N' in the table. > > > > I guess not having a value implies feature is not supported. > > N or any other single letter is supported. > > The nice thing about it is that it is explicitly NO rather than implicitly > NO. However, if all the nics filled in the NOes then the table might be > hard to read. > > So, for consistency it is probably best to just let the unsupported > features be blank. > > >
