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?
