> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 2:42 PM > To: Juraj Linkeš <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v15 11/12] build: add Arm SoC meson option > > 15/01/2021 14:26, Juraj Linkeš: > > Add Arm SoC configuration to Arm meson.build and add a meson option to > > enable those options for native builds. This is preferable to > > specifying a cross file when doing aarch64 -> aarch64 builds, since > > the cross file specifies the toolchain as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Juraj Linkeš <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]> > [...] > > --- a/config/arm/arm64_graviton2_linux_gcc > > +++ b/config/arm/arm64_graviton2_linux_gcc > > [properties] > > -implementor_id = '0x41' > > -implementor_pn = '0xd0c' > > -max_lcores = 64 > > -max_numa_nodes = 1 > > -numa = false > > +soc = 'graviton2' > [...] > > --- a/meson_options.txt > > +++ b/meson_options.txt > > +option('arm_soc', type: 'string', value: '', > > + description: 'Specify if you want to build for a particular aarch64 > > +Arm SoC when building on an aarch64 machine.') > > This is more elegant, I like how cross and native share almost the same > option. > > Why the option is named "arm_soc" and not just "soc"? > The same option could be used by other archs, isn't it? > >
Agree that a more generic name would be better. I'll change it to "soc" if there are no other suggestions.
