Re: [patch net-next RFC v2 08/11] mlxsw: spectrum_dpipe: Connect dpipe tables to resources

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:12:47PM CET, dsa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>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 <arkadis@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.

I have to be missing something. You can easily see the relation between
each dpipe table and resources already as a part of this patchset. The
string you suggest shows the same thing, therefore it is completely
redundant. What am I missing?