On 8 December 2015 at 18:03, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote: > 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?
I understand that you want to make the naming more clear. But arm/arm64 are used in Linux kernel, I think it's better to stay the same.
