On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 16:24 +0000, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > > > > > > I'll come up with a new patch based on the discussion > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > A few things noted, > > > > > > > - we still want it to be 128B for generic build > > > > > > > - we at least agreed on changing it to 64B for A72 > > > > > > How will this be done? Will you add > > > > > > config/arm/arm64_bluefield_linuxapp_gcc? > > > > > I asked this question as there was a proposal containing > > > > > 'a72' in > > > > > the file name. IMO, the file name should contain 'bluefield', > > > > > not > > > > > on a72. > > > > > > > > Sorry for late reply. It's been buried for some reason. :-) > > > No problem > > > > > > > Nope, I won't create such a file. That's for cross-compiler > > > > AFAIK. > > > > I'm thinking about changing meson.build. Currently, one CL size > > > > is > > > > applied to all kinds of cores. Consequently, for armv8a, both > > > > 'default' and 'a72' have to have the same CL size. And one more > > > > thing raised from ARM was that 'crypto' in -march can't be a > > > > default. > > > Yes, crypto is optional. So, the distro builds (and any other > > > builds > > > for binary compatibility) should not expect crypto to be present > > > by > > > default. > > > > IMO, crypto case is different where DPDK code check at runtime to > > see crypto > > instruction present in the given CPU before it uses any crypto > > instructions. so > > IMO, There is no harm in building with crypto enabled unlike other > > gcc flags. > > > Right now, DPDK does not boot on a platform with crypto disabled. Do > you suggest we remove the run time check in DPDK?
May be we need to introduce a framework to define mandatory cpu flags and optional flags. Check only mandatory flags at bootup or some abstraction where we can express above scenario like cryto flag case. >
