> <...> > > > +Driver compilation and testing > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +Follow instructions available in the document > > +:ref:`compiling and testing a PMD for a NIC <pmd_build_and_test>` > > +to launch **testpmd** > > + > > +Additionally, PPFE driver needs `--vdev` as an input with value `eth_pfe` > > +to execute DPDK application. There is an optional parameter `intf` > > available > > +to specify port ID. PPFE driver supports only two interfaces, so valid > > values > > +for `intf` are 0 and 1. > > +see the command below: > > + > > + .. code-block:: console > > + > > + <dpdk app> <EAL args> --vdev="eth_pfe0,intf=0" --vdev="eth_pfe1,intf=1" > -- ... > > Previously "eth_" was the prefix for the virtual devices, we have renamed it > to > "net_" [1], for this new PMD, can you please use 'net_pfe' for consistency? > > Also the driver name is 'ppfe', it is under 'net/ppfe' folder, but the device > name is 'pfe'. Is there any specific reason for this? > Would it be better to stick 'pfe' or 'ppfe' everywhere? Ok, I will change the interfaces names to net_pfe and will rename the ppfe to pfe everywhere.
> > [1] > That is why we have alias device names, to keep backward compatibility for > "eth_".
