[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add doc about supported features

[Alejandro Lucero]

Then I guess I should send another version of this patch.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yigit, Ferruh
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 12:08 PM
> > To: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero at netronome.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> > Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add doc about supported features
> >
> > On 12/2/2016 8:17 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero at netronome.com>
> > > ---
> > >  doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini
> > b/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini
> > > index d967151..dd78233 100644
> > > --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini
> > > +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/nfp.ini
> > > @@ -4,3 +4,28 @@
> > >  ; Refer to default.ini for the full list of available PMD features.
> > >  ;
> > >  [Features]
> > > +SR-IOV               = Y
> > > +Link status          = Y
> > > +Link status event    = Y
> > > +Rx interrupt         = N
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Do we support 'N'? Since this is the first 'N' in the table.
> >
> > I guess not having a value implies feature is not supported.
>
> N or any other single letter is supported.
>
> The nice thing about it is that it is explicitly NO rather than implicitly
> NO. However, if all the nics filled in the NOes then the table might be
> hard to read.
>
> So, for consistency it is probably best to just let the unsupported
> features be blank.
>
>
>