> > > +Supported NICs > > > +-------------- > > > + > > > +* Mellanox\ |reg| ConnectX\ |reg|-6 200G MCX654106A-HCAT (2x200G) > > > + > > > +Prerequisites > > > +------------- > > > + > > > +- Mellanox OFED version: **5.3** > > > + see :doc:`../../nics/mlx5` guide for more Mellanox OFED details. > > > > Since the driver is by default compiled off due to the dependency on > > external Libraries, I would recommend to add few lines here as well for > > compilation. > > Like to compile rdma-core and set PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR. > > Why? all Mellanox drivers has the same external dependencies. > I added here link for the doc explains it well.
This is a crypto PMD, not a NIC PMD. Somebody working on crypto PMDs, do not really care about the NIC PMDs. Hence it would be convenient to have compilation information here as well. You can refer to other document for details, but basic info should be added here as well. > > > And I do not see any updates to the test application for testing this > > driver. > > You can see update to l2fwd_crypto, we tested with this example for the first > stage. > Everything looks ok there. L2fwd-crypto is an app which only test data path with no packet validation. It does not tell if your encryption is correctly done as per standards or not. Did you test interoperability with l2fwd-crypto? All basic configuration tests are also not done, like cleanup etc of the PMD. I haven't seen a driver getting merge without the unit test application run. Test app helps you comply with the way dpdk drivers are meant to be written. > > > Is this driver really tested or is it work in progress? If it is work in > > progress, > We > > should defer this PMD to next release. > > We can continue test this driver for a long time. > The basics were tested in the above crypto example what proofs that driver > works well. > If we will find issues in other tests, we will send fixes. > > I'll send v4 with your comments adjustment soon. >
