On 8 December 2015 at 10:23, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote: > 2015-12-08 09:50, Jianbo Liu: >> On 8 December 2015 at 09:18, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> >> wrote: >> > 2015-12-03 23:02, Jianbo Liu: >> >> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64),y) >> >> +ifneq ($(filter y,$(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM) $(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64)),) >> > [...] >> >> +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_ARM >> >> +/* NEON intrinsic vqtbl1q_u8() is not supported in ARMv7-A(AArch32) */ >> > >> > I'm convinced there is a good reason why ARMv8 is also called ARCH_ARM64, >> > and ARMv7 may be called AArch32 or ARCH_ARM. But I don't know why? >> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133 >> >> > Is ARCH_ARM32 or ARCH_ARMv7 too simple? >> > Is it possible to have a 32-bit ARMv8? >> Yes, ARMv8-R/M > > So what does mean CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM? > ARMv7? ARM32? > Please consider a renaming.
I'd rather not renaming becase it can be both ARMv7 and AARCH32, which are ISA compatibility. If further differentiation is needed, CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is added in the config, just like Jan Viktorin did.
