From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1BD591F for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:49:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 07:49:18 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,234,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="809751530" Received: from dhunt5x-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.208.62]) ([10.237.208.62]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 07:49:18 -0800 To: Jan Viktorin References: <1446212959-19832-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <1446212959-19832-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <20151102045728.GB16413@localhost.localdomain> <56375597.8070805@intel.com> <20151102125743.GA9506@localhost.localdomain> <5637809B.1000806@intel.com> <20151102163627.7a08bcc5@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> From: "Hunt, David" Message-ID: <563785FD.2080809@intel.com> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:49:17 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151102163627.7a08bcc5@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] eal/arm: add 64-bit armv8 version of rte_memcpy.h X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 15:49:20 -0000 On 02/11/2015 15:36, Jan Viktorin wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:26:19 +0000 --snip-- > It was looking like we can share a lot of common code for both > architectures. I didn't know how much different are the cpuflags. CPU flags for ARMv8 are looking like this now. Quite different to the ARMv7 ones. static const struct feature_entry cpu_feature_table[] = { FEAT_DEF(FP, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 0) FEAT_DEF(ASIMD, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 1) FEAT_DEF(EVTSTRM, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 2) FEAT_DEF(AES, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 3) FEAT_DEF(PMULL, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 4) FEAT_DEF(SHA1, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 5) FEAT_DEF(SHA2, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 6) FEAT_DEF(CRC32, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 7) FEAT_DEF(AARCH32, 0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 0) FEAT_DEF(AARCH64, 0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 1) }; > IMHO, it'd be better to have two directories arm and arm64. I thought > to refer from arm64 to arm where possible. But I don't know whether is > this possible with the DPDK build system. I think both methodologies have their pros and cons. However, I'd lean towards the common directory with the "filename_32/64.h" scheme, as that similar to the x86 methodology, and we don't need to tweak the include paths to pull files from multiple directories. Dave