On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:52:19PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 19/01/2021 15:56, Juraj Linkeš:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > 15/01/2021 14:26, Juraj Linkeš:
> > > > Add Arm SoC configuration to Arm meson.build and add a meson option to
> > > > enable those options for native builds. This is preferable to
> > > > specifying a cross file when doing aarch64 -> aarch64 builds, since
> > > > the cross file specifies the toolchain as well.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
> > > [...]
> > > > --- a/config/arm/arm64_graviton2_linux_gcc
> > > > +++ b/config/arm/arm64_graviton2_linux_gcc
> > > > [properties]
> > > > -implementor_id = '0x41'
> > > > -implementor_pn = '0xd0c'
> > > > -max_lcores = 64
> > > > -max_numa_nodes = 1
> > > > -numa = false
> > > > +soc = 'graviton2'
> > > [...]
> > > > --- a/meson_options.txt
> > > > +++ b/meson_options.txt
> > > > +option('arm_soc', type: 'string', value: '',
> > > > + description: 'Specify if you want to build for a particular
> > > > aarch64
> > > > +Arm SoC when building on an aarch64 machine.')
> > >
> > > This is more elegant, I like how cross and native share almost the same
> > > option.
> > >
> > > Why the option is named "arm_soc" and not just "soc"?
> > > The same option could be used by other archs, isn't it?
> >
> > Agree that a more generic name would be better.
> > I'll change it to "soc" if there are no other suggestions.
>
> Another name could be "machine".
> Should it be the same mechanism as compiling for a specific x86 CPU
> from an x86 machine?
>
I'd rather not re-use the term "machine", for a new use, better to use a
new term IMHO.
