From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (e24smtp02.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.86]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E382A5B for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:04:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost by e24smtp02.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:04:24 -0200 Received: from d24dlp01.br.ibm.com (9.18.248.204) by e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (10.172.0.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:04:22 -0200 X-IBM-Helo: d24dlp01.br.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: ferseiti@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: dev@dpdk.org Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (d24relay01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.16]) by d24dlp01.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1BD352005C for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:04:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.91]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u1GI51AS3793032 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:05:01 -0200 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u1GI4KCg016481 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:04:20 -0200 Received: from oc0745135144.ibm.com (oc0745135144.ibm.com.br.ibm.com [9.18.235.71]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id u1GI4Ko9016472; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:04:20 -0200 To: Thomas Monjalon References: <1455296713-7417-1-git-send-email-ferseiti@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2231851.1TVA0CgCFh@xps13> <56BE3015.7090804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Fernando Seiti Furusato Message-ID: <56C364A4.3010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:04:20 -0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56BE3015.7090804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16021618-0021-0000-0000-0000050130F1 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: set CFLAGS for ppc64el build X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:04:26 -0000 Hi Thomas. On 02/12/2016 05:18 PM, Fernando Seiti Furusato wrote: > Hello Thomas. > Thanks for your quick response. > > On 02/12/2016 03:37 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 2016-02-12 12:05, Fernando Seiti Furusato: >>> Add a proper ifeq statement to set the mcpu as needed for ppc64el, as >>> the only one originally set is not valid for ppc architectures. >> >> What is the benefit of using the default machine config, compared to >> the power8 one? >> >> Don't you think the default machine should be renamed core2? > > I think it would be better indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. > >> >> [...] >>> +ifeq (ppc64le,$(shell uname -m)) >>> + MACHINE_CFLAGS += -mcpu=power8 >> >> Why this flag is not set in mk/machine/power8/rte.vars.mk ? >> > > This and what observed above would make a better patch. > Let me try those. I will be just changing the flag within mk/machine/power8/rte.vars.mk so it will be used on ppc64le. I thought since I am not sure how it will affect others, I will not mess with the default file. I had to copy config/defconfig_ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc to config/defconfig_ppc64le-native-linuxapp-gcc, because the build searches for it on ppc64le. Should I include that in the patch? Do you think there is a better approach? Thanks and regards. -- Fernando Seiti Furusato IBM Linux Technology Center