RE: [PATCH] build: add missing arch define for Arm

[Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 1:33 AM
> To: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org; viktorin@rehivetech.com;
> bruce.richardson@intel.com; stephen@networkplumber.org;
> juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: add missing arch define for Arm
> 
> 17/12/2021 09:54, Ruifeng Wang:
> > As per design document, RTE_ARCH is the name of the architecture.
> > However, the definition was missing on Arm with meson build.
> > It impacts applications that refers to this string.
> >
> > Added for Arm builds.
> >
> > Fixes: b1d48c41189a ("build: support ARM with meson")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > ---
> >                  ['RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32', true],
> > +                ['RTE_ARCH', 'arm64_aarch32'],
> 
> Why not armv8_aarch32?

Thanks for the comments.
Agreed. armv8_aarch32 is consistent with the RTE_ARCH_xx macro above.

> 
> [...]
> >          dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH_ARMv7', true)
> > +        dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'armv7')
> [...]
> >      # armv8 build
> > +    dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'arm64')
> 
> Why not armv8?
> 
> What I prefer the most in silicon industry is the naming craziness :)

While armv8 usually refers to one generation of the Arm architecture, arm64 is more generic for 64-bit architectures.
And what defined for armv8 build is RTE_ARCH_ARM64. So for consistency, arm64 is better?