Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: add arm 32bit cross compilation to Meson

["Juraj Linkeš" <juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech>]

Hi Ruifeng,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 8:24 AM
> To: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech>; bruce.richardson@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>;
> Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: add arm 32bit cross compilation to
> Meson
> 
> Hi Juraj,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Juraj Linke?
> > Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:15 PM
> > To: bruce.richardson@intel.com
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: add arm 32bit cross compilation to
> > Meson
> >
> > * Add arm-linux-gnueabihf cross-file
> > * Add generic and default arm 32 bit flags to arm meson.build
> > * Add support for disabling drivers using flags defined in Meson
> >   * Change checks from dpdk_conf.has() to dpdk.conf.get()
> >   * When processing which drivers to build, check whether the
> >     appropriate RTE flag isn't set to false
> >
> The changes are not small as a single patch.
> Could you split it into series of smaller patches?
> I think each bullet in commit message can be a separate patch.

Sure, I'll split the patch.

> > --
> > 2.11.0
> > NOTES: tested here: https://travis-
> > ci.com/github/jlinkes/dpdk/builds/159597484
> > There are two issues I would like to get feedback for:
> > 1. the aarch64 -> arm cross compilation fails when compiling l3fwd
> > example [0].
> >    I think this failure needs to be fixed by arm devs, but I would like to have
> >    this confirmed.
> Yes, this should be fixed in source code.

Ok, thanks.

> > 2. the patch breaks ABI checks on aarch64 [1]. The reason is that the
> >    RTE_LIBRTE_FM10K_PMD and RTE_LIBRTE_AVP_PMD flags in
> > config/arm/meson.build
> >    get properly applied, the libs don't get built and then check the fails when
> >    it doesn't find them. I don't know whether the application of these flags is
> >    desirable (and we would need to fix the ABI check) or whether we should
> >    remove the flags.
> Does the changes impact not only aarch32 but also aarch64?

Yes, it does, but only aarch64 cross build (when --cross-file is used). Bruce mentioned that they're moving away from statically defining the driver flags, so the mechanism will change, probably in a way that won't affect aarch64 cross build.

Juraj