Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] test: add checks for cpu flags on armv8

["Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>]

On 02/11/2015 15:13, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:04:14 +0000
> "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/2015 13:17, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> -snip--
>>> If am not wrong existing  rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled() implementation
>>> should be broken in your platform also for arm64. as I could see only AT_HWCAP
>>> not AT_HWCAP2 and AT_HWCAP is 0x7 that means your platform also
>>> follows
>>>
>>> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/hwcap.h
>>>
>>> and the implmentation is
>>>
>>> FEAT_DEF(SWP,       0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP,  0) // not correct for arm64
>>> FEAT_DEF(HALF,      0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP,  1) // not correct for arm64
>>> FEAT_DEF(THUMB,     0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP,  2) // not correct for arm64
>>> FEAT_DEF(A26BIT,    0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP,  3)
>> --snip--
>>> FEAT_DEF(CRC32,     0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP2,  4)
>>> FEAT_DEF(AARCH32,   0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 0)
>>> FEAT_DEF(AARCH64,   0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 1)
>>>
>>> Am I missing something ?
>>
>> You are correct. I need to re-visit this. In merging the ARMv7 and
>> ARVv8, I should have split the hardware capabilities flags into 32-but
>> and 64-bit versions. I'll do that in the next patch.
>> Thanks,
>> Dave.
>
> Should I split the rte_atomic.h and rte_cpuflags.h then?
>
> Jan

It looks like we're headed in that direction, so yes, I think that would 
be a good idea.

Dave