From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE38A0561; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 02:36:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18F64069F; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 02:36:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8383240692 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 02:36:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from DGGEMS411-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by szxga07-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Ds9JX2Vj2z8snQ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 09:34:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.78.49.194] (10.78.49.194) by DGGEMS411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.498.0; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 09:36:14 +0800 To: =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=c5=a1?= , "Thomas Monjalon" CC: "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "linuxarm@openeuler.org" References: <1612356396-21309-1-git-send-email-oulijun@huawei.com> <5435054.rFV2aVPxyo@thomas> <2613370.aJkOJV8Rtk@thomas> <6c3db7beccb34c249a3e08996f82d51e@pantheon.tech> From: oulijun Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 09:36:14 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6c3db7beccb34c249a3e08996f82d51e@pantheon.tech> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.78.49.194] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] config/arm: fix Hisilicon kunpeng920 SoC build X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" 在 2021/3/1 18:46, Juraj Linkeš 写道: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Monjalon >> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:10 PM >> To: Juraj Linkeš >> Cc: oulijun ; ferruh.yigit@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; >> linuxarm@openeuler.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] config/arm: fix Hisilicon kunpeng920 SoC >> build >> >> 24/02/2021 12:55, Juraj Linkeš: >>> From: dev On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon >>>> 24/02/2021 02:34, oulijun: >>>>> >>>>> 在 2021/2/10 17:41, Thomas Monjalon 写道: >>>>>> 03/02/2021 13:46, Lijun Ou: >>>>>>> From: Chengchang Tang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because of the '9ca2f16' have merged, the current hns3 pmd >>>>>>> driver can not be directly complied on the kunpeng920 server board. >>>>>>> Therefore, we need to fix the meson build. >>>>>>> Besides, add kunpeng 920 SoC meson cross compile target. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 9ca2f16faa7f ("config/arm: isolate generic build") >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you think this patch is fixing the one above? >>>>>> It looks just a new config, not a fix. Am I missing something? >>>>>> >>>>> I'm sorry to see you so late. In the meantime, we are celebrating >>>>> the Spring Festival. This patch fixes the problem. If the patch is >>>>> not added, the latest version cannot be directly compiled on the >>>>> Kunpeng >>>>> 930 server board.In addition, the cross compilation configuration file is >> added. >>>> >>>> Please can you explain what was removed which breaks your compilation? >>>> >>> >>> I can explain what's changed and why we changed it. >>> >>> The previous behavior was that when an uknown implementer was found >> (when we're building on an uknown build machine) we fell back to a generic >> build. >>> The current behavior is we raise an error when building on an unknown build >> machine and inform the user about the generic build (there's an error in the >> message, it should be -Dmachine=default instead of -Dmachine=generic). Lijun >> came across this scenario, so he wants to add an implementer, but it is not a fix, >> rather an addition that we wanted to encourage when we changed the >> behavior. The change in behavior also has an additional benefit in that it notifies >> the user that meson is not doing a tailored build for the build machine and the >> only permissible build is the generic one. >> >> There were already many fixes for that rework. >> Please check if there are other missing updates. >> > > This is actually the first mistake that my testing missed. I tested that the message is properly emitted, but I didn't test the message after we extracted the default->generic rename patch. As a side note, we could address this issue with http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1613657555-17683-1-git-send-email-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech/ - then we can leave the message in place as is (with -Dmachine=generic). > > I went through all of the patches again but I didn't find anything that needs addressing. > > As far as I'm aware, there were two other fixes for the series. One was a failure of communication (the native margs fix - I implemented what we thought we agreed on) and the other is not really a fix, just the addition of one implementer configuration (I removed the implementer because we didn't have its configuration). The clang cross-compile fixes are related, but those are the problem with that series, not the rework series. > Hi, the patch http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1613657555-17683-1-git-send-email-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech/ will this patch be incorporated? We have realized this problem and fixed it in the internal version. >> >> >