On 02/11/2015 15:13, Jan Viktorin wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:04:14 +0000 > "Hunt, David" <david.hunt at intel.com> wrote: > >> On 02/11/2015 13:17, Jerin Jacob wrote: >> -snip-- >>> If am not wrong existing rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled() implementation >>> should be broken in your platform also for arm64. as I could see only >>> AT_HWCAP >>> not AT_HWCAP2 and AT_HWCAP is 0x7 that means your platform also >>> follows >>> >>> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/hwcap.h >>> >>> and the implmentation is >>> >>> FEAT_DEF(SWP, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 0) // not correct for arm64 >>> FEAT_DEF(HALF, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 1) // not correct for arm64 >>> FEAT_DEF(THUMB, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 2) // not correct for arm64 >>> FEAT_DEF(A26BIT, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 3) >> --snip-- >>> FEAT_DEF(CRC32, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP2, 4) >>> FEAT_DEF(AARCH32, 0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 0) >>> FEAT_DEF(AARCH64, 0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 1) >>> >>> Am I missing something ? >> >> You are correct. I need to re-visit this. In merging the ARMv7 and >> ARVv8, I should have split the hardware capabilities flags into 32-but >> and 64-bit versions. I'll do that in the next patch. >> Thanks, >> Dave. > > Should I split the rte_atomic.h and rte_cpuflags.h then? > > Jan
It looks like we're headed in that direction, so yes, I think that would be a good idea. Dave
