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.
