On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:17:31AM +0000, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula wrote: > > ><snip> > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The patch still holds true for CRC though as it is listed > >> >> >> > separately below > >> >> >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >> >> >3A__developer.arm.com_architectures_cpu-2Darchitecture_a- > >> >> > >>2D&d=DwIFAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=E3SgYMjtKCMVsB- > >> >> >fmvgGV3o- > >> >> > >> > >>>g_fjLhk5Pupi9ijohpc&m=i3kC8htMiHjXMoJWUn6QlDVZQCblbFrIJyMc > >> >W > >> >> > >> > >>>d9nAmM&s=fA4SM6O3iC2HXIK1qSbOHzxVeHoYqcfUebEOwioHC7c& > >e > >> >= > >> >> >> > profile/exploration-tools/feature-names-for-a-profile > >> >> >CRC is mandatory starting in V8.1, refer to Arm-ARM document. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Also, looks like sve2 support in n2 core might be optional as > >> >> >> > per > >> >> >above doc? > >> >> >> I need to check on this. Some of the info here might not be > >public > >> >yet. > >> >> >I found [1]. SVE2 is mandatory feature. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> I see thanks for the info I will remove extension from cnxk. > >> >> > >> >> Do you think the extension infra is still useful for other cases? i.e. > >> >older cores > >> >> or cases where vendor wants to enable some extensions by > >default? > >> >> > >> >> I found a document[1] which describes about extensions not > >enabled > >> >by > >> >> default but supported by a given march. > >> >> In case of n2 I think memory tagging is one such feature > >> >I think the reference is providing a different information than what > >> >you are trying to achieve here. > >> > > >> >It looks like you are trying to address a use case where in the same > >> >CPU IP has different features enabled/disabled on different SoCs. > >> >This is a valid use case from crypto perspective (due to export > >control > >> >reasons) where-in 2 different SoCs might have crypto > >enabled/disabled. > >> >I am not sure if other features can be enabled/disabled. But, Crypto > >> >feature is a good enough reason to address such a use case. > >> > >> Yes, that's my intension apologies if the commit log doesn't clarify it > >properly. > >> > >> > > >> >IMO, we should capture the SoC specific details in SoC specific files, > >> >in this case in 'arm64_cn10k_linux_gcc'. I believe there were some > >> >challenges in doing this. > >> > >> Since, all the flags are populated through soc_* variable and > >> arm64_cn10k_linux_gcc also translates to soc_cn10k I believe the > >extensions > >> should be reported through > >> soc_* variables. > >IMO, there will be more SoCs in the future. I prefer to not grow > >meson.build. > > Problem is native build wouldn't read arm64_*_linux_gcc, it will be really > hard to parse it and read extensions if they are placed there. > Since our minimum meson version for DPDK is >0.49, would native-build files[1] for meson offer a solution here?
/Bruce [1] https://mesonbuild.com/Native-environments.html
