-----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:32:44 +0530 > From: santosh <santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com> > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>, John McNamara > <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.m...@6wind.com, jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com, > hemant.agra...@nxp.com, ferruh.yi...@intel.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 10/10] doc: add mempool and octeontx > mempool device > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/45.5.1 > > > 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? > as I'm not fully convinced with your proposition. > > > you can make it outside in a mempool guide. > > John do you have an opinion? > > >
