<snip>
>
> 20/01/2021 02:04, Honnappa Nagarahalli:
> > > 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:
> > > > > > > --- 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.')
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Another possible word is "platform",
> as in http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/platform/index.html
I am fine with 'platform' too.
>
