2015-12-08 15:56, Jianbo Liu: > 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.
I don't understand. You say CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM is for ARMv7 and AARCH32, right? Both are 32-bit right? Why not rename it to CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM32?
