Hi Juraj, > -----Original Message----- > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Juraj Linke? > Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:15 PM > To: bruce.richard...@intel.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: add arm 32bit cross compilation to Meson > > * Add arm-linux-gnueabihf cross-file > * Add generic and default arm 32 bit flags to arm meson.build > * Add support for disabling drivers using flags defined in Meson > * Change checks from dpdk_conf.has() to dpdk.conf.get() > * When processing which drivers to build, check whether the > appropriate RTE flag isn't set to false > The changes are not small as a single patch. Could you split it into series of smaller patches? I think each bullet in commit message can be a separate patch.
> Signed-off-by: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> > --- > app/test-pmd/meson.build | 4 +- > app/test/meson.build | 2 +- > config/arm/arm_armv7a_linux_gcc | 17 ++++ > config/arm/meson.build | 157 > +++++++++++++++++++++------------- > drivers/meson.build | 13 ++- > drivers/net/kni/meson.build | 2 +- > examples/ethtool/meson.build | 2 +- > examples/ioat/meson.build | 2 +- > examples/kni/meson.build | 2 +- > examples/vm_power_manager/meson.build | 4 +- > lib/librte_port/meson.build | 2 +- > lib/meson.build | 2 +- > 12 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) create mode 100644 > config/arm/arm_armv7a_linux_gcc > <snip> > -- > 2.11.0 > NOTES: tested here: https://travis- > ci.com/github/jlinkes/dpdk/builds/159597484 > There are two issues I would like to get feedback for: > 1. the aarch64 -> arm cross compilation fails when compiling l3fwd example > [0]. > I think this failure needs to be fixed by arm devs, but I would like to > have > this confirmed. Yes, this should be fixed in source code. > 2. the patch breaks ABI checks on aarch64 [1]. The reason is that the > RTE_LIBRTE_FM10K_PMD and RTE_LIBRTE_AVP_PMD flags in > config/arm/meson.build > get properly applied, the libs don't get built and then check the fails > when > it doesn't find them. I don't know whether the application of these flags > is > desirable (and we would need to fix the ABI check) or whether we should > remove the flags. Does the changes impact not only aarch32 but also aarch64? > > [0] https://travis-ci.com/github/jlinkes/dpdk/jobs/317622662#L2672 > [1] https://travis-ci.com/github/jlinkes/dpdk/jobs/317622661#L4488
