> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 6:01 PM > To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > Cc: hemant.agra...@nxp.com; jer...@marvell.com; > vikto...@rehivetech.com; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Phil Yang <phil.y...@arm.com>; nd > <n...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] config: remap flags used for Arm > platforms > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 09:05:23AM +0000, Ruifeng Wang wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > > > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 4:13 PM > > > To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > > Cc: hemant.agra...@nxp.com; jer...@marvell.com; > > > vikto...@rehivetech.com; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > > > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Phil Yang <phil.y...@arm.com>; nd > > > <n...@arm.com> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] config: remap flags used for Arm > > > platforms > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 02:03:20PM +0800, Ruifeng Wang wrote: > > > > Flags are used to distinguish different platform architectures. > > > > These flags can be used to pick different code paths for different > > > > architectures at compile time. > > > > For Arm platforms, there are 3 flags in use: RTE_ARCH_ARM, > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 and RTE_ARCH_ARM64. > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARM64 is used to flag 64-bit aarch64 platforms, while > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARM & RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 are used to flag 32-bit platforms. > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is for ARMv7 platforms as its name suggested. > > > > > > > > The issue is that flag name RTE_ARCH_ARM is unclear and could > > > > cause confusion. No info about platform word length is included in the > name. > > > > To make the flag names more clear, a naming scheme is proposed. > > > > > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARM > > > > | > > > > +----RTE_ARCH_ARM32 > > > > | | > > > > | +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 > > > > | | > > > > | +----RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32 > > > > | > > > > +----RTE_ARCH_ARM64 > > > > > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARM32 will be used for 32-bit Arm platforms. > > > > It includes RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 and RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32. > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is for ARMv7 platforms. > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32 is for aarch32 state on aarch64 platforms. > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARM64 is for 64-bit Arm platforms. > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARM will be used for all Arm platforms, including > > > > RTE_ARCH_ARM32 and RTE_ARCH_ARM64. > > > > > > > > To fit into the new naming scheme, current usage of RTE_ARCH_ARM > > > > in project code is mapped to RTE_ARCH_ARM32. > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Phil Yang <phil.y...@arm.com> > > > > --- > > > Just to note that for all architectures there is the RTE_ARCH_64 > > > define which is set if the system is 64-bit. That could be used > > > instead if you didn't want to have to specially define ARM32 and ARM64 > macros. > > > > > Yes. Thanks for the note. > > RTE_ARCH_ARM64 is used in architecture specific cases. For example, > > when a processing path is not implemented by some of 64-bit architectures, > RTE_ARCH_64 is not sufficient. > > > Yes, but is RTE_ARCH_ARM64 not identical to RTE_ARCH_ARM && > RTE_ARCH_64?
My thought is: 1. RTE_ARCH_ARM64 is a direct macro, so with better readability. 2. RTE_ARCH_ARM64 is already used widely in the project. So I think it is better not to replace the occurrences with combination of other macros.
