Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] eal/acl: enable acl for armv7-a

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2015-12-08 18:21, Jianbo Liu:
> On 8 December 2015 at 18:03, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> > 2015-12-08 15:56, Jianbo Liu:
> >> On 8 December 2015 at 10:23, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> >> > 2015-12-08 09:50, Jianbo Liu:
> >> >> On 8 December 2015 at 09:18, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 2015-12-03 23:02, Jianbo Liu:
> >> >> >> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64),y)
> >> >> >> +ifneq ($(filter y,$(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM) $(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64)),)
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >> +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_ARM
> >> >> >> +/* NEON intrinsic vqtbl1q_u8() is not supported in ARMv7-A(AArch32) */
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm convinced there is a good reason why ARMv8 is also called ARCH_ARM64,
> >> >> > and ARMv7 may be called AArch32 or ARCH_ARM. But I don't know why?
> >> >> >
> >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133
> >> >>
> >> >> > Is ARCH_ARM32 or ARCH_ARMv7 too simple?
> >> >> > Is it possible to have a 32-bit ARMv8?
> >> >> Yes, ARMv8-R/M
> >> >
> >> > So what does mean CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM?
> >> > ARMv7? ARM32?
> >> > Please consider a renaming.
> >>
> >> I'd rather not renaming becase it can be both ARMv7 and AARCH32, which
> >> are ISA compatibility.
> >> If further differentiation is needed, CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is added
> >> in the config, just like Jan Viktorin did.
> >
> > I don't understand.
> > You say CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM is for ARMv7 and AARCH32, right?
> > Both are 32-bit right?
> > Why not rename it to CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM32?
> 
> I understand that you want to make the naming more clear.
> But arm/arm64 are used in Linux kernel, I think it's better to stay the same.

Linux supports ARM for a very long time. Doing a rename now is costly.
The DPDK support is recent. Keeping a bad naming scheme because an
old project follows this scheme is insane.