18/10/2017 16:36, Jerin Jacob: > From: santosh <santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com> > > > > On Wednesday 18 October 2017 07:15 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 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. > > > > That way, event device also a common hw block.. just like mempool block is > > for octeontx platform. Also PCI bus is octeontx bus.. we don;t have platform > > specific bus like dpaa has, so bus stuff not applicable to octeontx > > doc(imo). > > > > > 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. > > > > yes, we did discussed on IRC. But I'm still unsure about scope of that > > guide > > from octeontx perspective: That new platform entry has info about only one > > block > > which is mempool and for other common block or specific blocks : > > user has to look around at different directories.. > > > > >> 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, > > > > I don't have strong opinion on doc.. I'm just asking for more opinions > > here.. > > Combining both proposal. How about, > 1) Create ./doc/guides/mempool/octeontx.rst to capture octeontx mempool > specific information.(Which is inline with driver/ hierarchy). > 2) Create a platform specific document(say doc/guides/platform/octeontx.rst) > - We can use this file to capture information about the common content > between the three separate documents(doc/guides/nics/octeontx.rst, > ./doc/guides/eventdevs/octeontx.rst and ./doc/guides/mempool/octeontx.rst) and > give reference to common file instead of duplicating the information in > driver documentation. > > Thomas, John, > > Thoughts?
This is one of the two options I described in my last email. Our emails have crossed in the air :) The other option is to merge the mempool guide in the platform guide, assuming that a hardware mempool cannot be used with another platform, and assuming that the platform guide will give the big picture about memory addressing and capabilities, overlapping with mempool section. I am OK with both options.
