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 B8E27A04B0; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:13:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F7D1C0BC; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:13:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487091C026 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:13:14 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: 2d+i/s25UsoOLmOsmsWmKIdy0S0J80Pgznl7ANr2RhcPpAi5ryfm3imSU7bUtO/IJ8dy+9ffxl HjPALLXeB9ng== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9712"; a="172421624" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,311,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="172421624" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Aug 2020 01:13:12 -0700 IronPort-SDR: zJYyDQpGz4Mos4HqGs2XFSfAqHmRc+oOegGYFTR+abTFkb/fWybl5Ty1r6Yy30w5gFsR52IYFY GoRr8TFuc9Cw== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,311,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="470517029" Received: from ydimrix-mobl4.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com) ([10.252.45.63]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Aug 2020 01:13:10 -0700 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:13:06 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Ruifeng Wang 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 Message-ID: <20200814081306.GA1970@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20200814060320.86238-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200814060320.86238-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] 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" 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 > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang > Reviewed-by: Phil Yang > --- 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