<snip>
>
> 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.
+1, agree. 'soc' sounds good to me.
