> From: Juraj Linkeš [mailto:juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech] > Sent: Monday, 17 January 2022 14.12 > > > From: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:05 AM > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 1:33 AM > > > > > > 17/12/2021 09:54, Ruifeng Wang: > > > > As per design document, RTE_ARCH is the name of the architecture. > > > > However, the definition was missing on Arm with meson build. > > > > It impacts applications that refers to this string. > > > > > > > > Added for Arm builds. > > > > > > > > Fixes: b1d48c41189a ("build: support ARM with meson") > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > > > --- > > > > ['RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32', true], > > > > + ['RTE_ARCH', 'arm64_aarch32'], > > > > > > Why not armv8_aarch32? > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > Agreed. armv8_aarch32 is consistent with the RTE_ARCH_xx macro above. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH_ARMv7', true) > > > > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'armv7') > > > [...] > > > > # armv8 build > > > > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'arm64') > > > > > > Why not armv8? > > > > > > What I prefer the most in silicon industry is the naming craziness > :) > > > > While armv8 usually refers to one generation of the Arm architecture, > arm64 is > > more generic for 64-bit architectures. > > And what defined for armv8 build is RTE_ARCH_ARM64. So for > consistency, > > arm64 is better? > > > > Using armv8_aarch32 along with arm64 doesn't seem right. We should > unite these and I think armv8 makes sense. As you mentioned arvm8 is an > arm64 architecture and using the more precise identification is better > in my opinion (as that gives more information). As for the consistency > with RTE_ARCH_ARM64, I think the problem is that we don't have the > RTE_ARCH_ARMv8 flag (which would provide the consistency, but won't be > used): > The current code is, accurately, written for 64bit arm architectures > (all of them). > There is currently no need to differentiate between 64bit arm > architectures which is why RTE_ARCH_ARMv8 doesn't exist. > However, armv8 exists and we know how to identify it which is why I > think setting RTE_ARCH to armv8 is the way to go. > > So my thinking is RTE_ARCH should be set to armv8, which implies > RTE_ARCH_ARMv8 which in turn implies RTE_ARCH_ARM64. We're just missing > the middle part since there's no use for it now. > > And to be fully consistent, we could add RTE_ARCH_ARM32 to armv7 (as a > superset of RTE_ARCH_ARMv7, but that likely won't be of much use). >
DPDK already has the cross-platform RTE_ARCH_64 and RTE_ARCH_32 to indicate 64/32 bit word size. You don't need ARM-specific versions of these!
