From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20408A04B7; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:26:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95AD1DD17; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:26:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63191D64C for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:26:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2DD580167; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:26:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= Jihx4gGo/CWoH5gxbINHq5iWSh/PB2KESOGmL5zsMsk=; b=se9Cfp/6X3AC2qbQ FWYTi9AQWjvKtEsbnGZudvRmhDYd/Xe6JSxzkozFXMp6luJnmb5FqOjQUUpD+7j4 XQTPheVJM95iO6lQiKUXYXZH23DSkbzBfMzlJz6Nw7Jccs1yV/g6j+vK2k9CJeKt K3NSUCNudy/edztFEyUCd7heB/mZ8NpzPp6eBVHiBG0EdWb8YpxiEpEhwDHqc/+x XbE7NVzXMHMhfpEa1gBqHaYMN3H/8ch3pey5jIrucIKTEItVB7qJ0v/zl8gfMafy dei5ynvHIn2EaHQXCCC0DoF7tZtBq+GbE/t6xR8+L50eST2HsozmWEpkPPLy9OO3 rnPVyQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Jihx4gGo/CWoH5gxbINHq5iWSh/PB2KESOGmL5zsM sk=; b=eCSDmzOXITUsJyevW2n1Un/B9V/kxwIfJHede3cvZ4uT65ps8UvJ2V7nW q/v2nHwU3zUSQujG+/gtwXhXCGk1HaZwJh7rZzXz6W9q4V5mDT43ZsodT6MZztWv GiacA4iBo1mKacJELwuilL3K9Ge8Y45FxPxMOy4tBs3ERGE02YpuJSohcfmmZB0M fQkYihx3wFjLIB0oN02XYQAqQTGO415dVaR7ehPrbZJ7WYf+fMSPT04sJoFaxC1j wbcMXGxoQLWXNGolLXgMOQhc5taqLxr4Pn9asy14c5jabBIi/OZLKl/8P894oF7J M2HamLhAP68AYdmkfr8XPh+icKRYQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrheelgdejjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 603ED328005E; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:26:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ruifeng Wang Cc: Bruce Richardson , Vladimir Medvedkin , Hemant Agrawal , Sachin Saxena , Wei Zhao , Jeff Guo , Maxime Coquelin , Chenbo Xia , Zhihong Wang , Konstantin Ananyev , Jan Viktorin , dev@dpdk.org, jerinj@marvell.com, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, phil.yang@arm.com, nd@arm.com Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:26:20 +0200 Message-ID: <14978748.slpD515BXZ@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20200911153959.204042-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> References: <20200911153959.204042-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] config: remap flags used for Arm platforms X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 11/09/2020 17:39, Ruifeng Wang: > RTE_ARCH_xx flags are used to distinguish 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 for 64-bit aarch64 platforms, > and RTE_ARCH_ARM & RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 are for 32-bit platforms. > RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is for ARMv7 platforms as its name suggested. > > The issue is meaning of RTE_ARCH_ARM is not clear enough. > Because 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 (all Arm platforms) > | > +----RTE_ARCH_32 (New. 32-bit platforms of all architectures) > | | > | +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 (ARMv7 platforms) > | | > | +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32 (aarch32 state on aarch64 machine) > | > +----RTE_ARCH_64 (64-bit platforms of all architectures) > | > +----RTE_ARCH_ARM64 (64-bit Arm platforms) > > RTE_ARCH_32 will be explicitly defined for 32-bit platforms. > > To fit into the new naming scheme, current usage of RTE_ARCH_ARM in > project is mapped to (RTE_ARCH_ARM && RTE_ARCH_32). > > Matching flags for other architectures are: > RTE_ARCH_X86 > | > +----RTE_ARCH_32 > | | > | +----RTE_ARCH_I686 > | | > | +----RTE_ARCH_X86_X32 > | > +----RTE_ARCH_64 > | > +----RTE_ARCH_X86_64 > > RTE_ARCH_PPC_64 ---- RTE_ARCH_64 > > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang > Reviewed-by: Phil Yang Applied, thanks