28/10/2019 04:24, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > 23/10/2019 07:03, Jerin Jacob: > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:37 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli > > > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 07:48 +0800, Gavin Hu wrote: > > > > > > > > Arm N1 SDP is an infrastructure segment development platform > > > > > > > > based on armv8.2-a Neoverse N1 CPU. For more information, refer > > to: > > > > > > > > https://community.arm.com/developer/tools-software/oss-platf > > > > > > > > orms/w > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > docs/440/neoverse-n1-sdp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com> > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli > > > > > > > > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Steve Capper <steve.cap...@arm.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > +CONFIG_RTE_MACHINE="neoversen1" > > > > > > > This should probably be "n1sdp" as this is the name of the > > > > > > > platform that matches the below configuration. > > > > > > A clear definition of RTE_MACHINE is required. Jerin? > > > > > > > > > > I think, In the existing scheme of things, RTE_MACHINE defines, > > > > > where to take the MACHINE_CFLAGS mk/machine/xxxx/rte.vars.mk > > > > Ok, thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the fact that there will be a lot of reusable IPs(for > > > > > CPU) from ARM for armv8, I think, it would make sense to > > > > > introduce RTE_MICRO_ARCH to avoid a lot of code duplications and > > confusion. > > > > > > > > > > RTE_ARCH example: "x86" or "arm64" > > > > > RTE_MICRO_ARCH example: "a72" or "thunderx3" - defines > > > > > mcpu and armv8 verion arch etc > > > > > RTE_MACHINE example: "bluefield" or "thunderx3" > > > > > - defines, number of cores, NUMA or not? etc > > > > Looking at mk/machine/ directory, looks like RTE_MACHINE seems to be > > defining micro-architecture for Intel. For ex: hsw, nhm, wsm. I see the same > > for Arm as well. > > > > Are you suggesting that we use RTE_MICRO_ARCH to pick mk/micro- > > arch/xxxx/rte.vars.mk? and RTE_MACHINE would pick > > mk/machine/xxxx/rte.vars.mk, but contain NUMA, #of cores etc? > > > > > > Yes for Make build. I think, it is deprecated soon, so we need a > > > similar solution for meson. > > > > Yes I would prefer we clean the mess in Meson, instead of talking about the > > makefile system. > > And honestly, N1 is not needed in the legacy makefile system. > Unfortunately, most of the guys I talk to are still on makefile.
You need to help them to switch. Adding new targets in meson-only can be a good motivation :) > When is makefile system getting removed? It must be clearly decided and announced. The previous techboard discussions were about making makefile hardly usable during 2020, i.e. very soon. > > So focusing on config/arm/meson.build, > > I think RTE_MACHINE is defined only for API compatibility with makefile. > > However, I doubt this value is used by any application. > > I think we can try to remove RTE_MACHINE from meson builds in DPDK 19.11, > > or use RTE_MACHINE as micro-arch (my preference). > 'MACHINE' means different things to different people, which is the root cause > of this discussion. > 'MICRO-ARCH' has a very clear meaning. Do you see any problem going with > MICRO-ARCH instead? Some applications may use RTE_MACHINE for this purpose. It is part of the API since the befinning of DPDK. I don't see a real motivation to break this API now.
