On 11/23/17 6:40 AM, Arkadi Sharshevsky wrote: > > > On 11/19/2017 05:58 PM, David Ahern wrote: >> On 11/19/17 2:16 AM, Arkadi Sharshevsky wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/18/2017 09:19 PM, David Ahern wrote: >>>> On 11/14/17 9:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>> From: Arkadi Sharshevsky <arka...@mellanox.com> >>>>> >>>>> Connect current dpipe tables to resources. The tables are connected >>>>> in the following fashion: >>>>> 1. IPv4 host - KVD hash single >>>>> 2. IPv6 host - KVD hash double >>>>> 3. Adjacency - KVD linear >>>> >>>> Those descriptions would be helpful to the user. A description attribute >>>> for the resources? >>>> >>> >>> As described in the cover letter this resources are used by the >>> majority of the ASICs lookup processes. So currently there is one >>> to one mapping but is should increase as more tables are exposed, >>> so I don't think its a good idea to maintain such an attribute. >>> >> >> 'IPv4 host' yes, but I mean the term 'KVD hash single'? Is it the same >> across all h/w vendors? I have only seen that in the context of MLX. If >> it is a MLX term then a description to the user that KVD hash single == >> IPv4 host is warranted. >> > > But this relation is wrong, there is no equality here. The LPM, FDB and > VID to FID mapping are all can be modeled as lookup tables (via dpipe) > that use KVD hash single resource. > > This description string will grow very long. I dont think this is the > right place to document such thing, eitherway, the user can dump the > dpipe tables and see which is mapped to what resource.
Users should not have to find a PRM or user guide for *each version of their hardware* to program something so fundamental. This is software. We can make it user friendly. Use of vendor specific terms is fine -- allows correlation to vendor docs. But there should also be text to help the user correlate vendor terms to generic industry terms.
