From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
Cc: hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, jerinj@marvell.com,
viktorin@rehivetech.com, dev@dpdk.org,
honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, phil.yang@arm.com, nd@arm.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] config: remap flags used for Arm platforms
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:13:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200814081306.GA1970@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200814060320.86238-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 02:03:20PM +0800, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> Flags are used to distinguish different platform architectures.
> These flags can be used to pick different code paths for different
> architectures at compile time.
> For Arm platforms, there are 3 flags in use: RTE_ARCH_ARM,
> RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 and RTE_ARCH_ARM64.
> RTE_ARCH_ARM64 is used to flag 64-bit aarch64 platforms,
> while RTE_ARCH_ARM & RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 are used to flag 32-bit platforms.
> RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is for ARMv7 platforms as its name suggested.
>
> The issue is that flag name RTE_ARCH_ARM is unclear and could cause
> confusion. No info about platform word length is included in the name.
> To make the flag names more clear, a naming scheme is proposed.
>
> RTE_ARCH_ARM
> |
> +----RTE_ARCH_ARM32
> | |
> | +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv7
> | |
> | +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32
> |
> +----RTE_ARCH_ARM64
>
> RTE_ARCH_ARM32 will be used for 32-bit Arm platforms.
> It includes RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 and RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32.
> RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is for ARMv7 platforms.
> RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32 is for aarch32 state on aarch64 platforms.
> RTE_ARCH_ARM64 is for 64-bit Arm platforms.
> RTE_ARCH_ARM will be used for all Arm platforms, including RTE_ARCH_ARM32
> and RTE_ARCH_ARM64.
>
> To fit into the new naming scheme, current usage of RTE_ARCH_ARM in
> project code is mapped to RTE_ARCH_ARM32.
>
> Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> ---
Just to note that for all architectures there is the RTE_ARCH_64 define
which is set if the system is 64-bit. That could be used instead if you
didn't want to have to specially define ARM32 and ARM64 macros.
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-14 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-14 6:03 Ruifeng Wang
2020-08-14 8:13 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2020-08-14 9:05 ` Ruifeng Wang
2020-08-14 10:01 ` Bruce Richardson
2020-08-14 10:42 ` Ruifeng Wang
2020-08-18 14:36 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-08-18 14:53 ` Bruce Richardson
2020-08-18 18:48 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-08-19 8:01 ` Ruifeng Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200814081306.GA1970@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=phil.yang@arm.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
--cc=viktorin@rehivetech.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).