From: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"viktorin@rehivetech.com" <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Phil Yang <Phil.Yang@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] config: remap flags used for Arm platforms
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 08:01:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <HE1PR0801MB20255715A5ED97FE748452AF9E5D0@HE1PR0801MB2025.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d6dc9c18-22e9-66e2-0f19-a7d181fa10f0@intel.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:36 PM
> To: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> jerinj@marvell.com; viktorin@rehivetech.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Phil Yang <Phil.Yang@arm.com>; nd
> <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] config: remap flags used for Arm
> platforms
>
> On 8/14/2020 7:03 AM, 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>
> > ---
>
> <...>
>
> > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> > CONFIG_RTE_MACHINE="armv7a"
> >
> > CONFIG_RTE_ARCH="arm"
> > -CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM=y
> > +CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM32=y
> > CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARMv7=y
> > CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM_TUNE="cortex-a9"
>
> According commit log message I thought 'RTE_ARCH_ARM' will be always set,
> isn't it the case?
>
> Is below wrong:
> aarch64 -> ARM | ARM64 | ARCH_64
> armv7a -> ARM | ARM32 | ARMv7
> aarch32 -> ARM | ARM32 | ARMv8_AARCH32
>
Yes, it is.
This is correct.
> If so some of the 'defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM32) ||
> defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64)' checks can be simplified as
> 'defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM)'
>
Will do the change when converting this RFC to a patch.
>
> Also currently missing 'ARCH_64' flag implies the 32bit support, for all
> architectures, what about having a common 'ARCH_32' flag and use for all
> arch, instead of 'ARM32'? So something like below:
> aarch64 -> ARM | ARM64 | ARCH_64
> armv7a -> ARM | ARMv7 | ARCH_32
> aarch32 -> ARM | ARMv8_AARCH32 | ARCH_32
>
Having a common 'ARCH_32' flag for all arch is good.
Then for Arm we will have:
RTE_ARCH_ARM
|
+----RTE_ARCH_32
| |
| +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv7
| |
| +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32
|
+----RTE_ARCH_64
|
+----RTE_ARCH_ARM64
For x86 we will have:
RTE_ARCH_X86
|
+----RTE_ARCH_32
| |
| +----RTE_ARCH_I686
| |
| +----RTE_ARCH_X86_X32
|
+----RTE_ARCH_64
|
+----RTE_ARCH_X86_64
For PowerPC we will have: RTE_ARCH_PPC_64
>
>
>
> Just to record matching flags for other archs are:
>
> x86_64 -> X86 | X86_64 | ARCH_64
> i686 -> X86 | I686
> x86_32 -> X86 | X86_32
>
> ppc_64 -> PPC_64 | ARCH_64
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-19 8:01 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
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 [this message]
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=HE1PR0801MB20255715A5ED97FE748452AF9E5D0@HE1PR0801MB2025.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=Phil.Yang@arm.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=nd@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).