On 1/30/2018 3:03 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
On 1/30/2018 2:12 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
Hi Jerin,
On 1/25/2018 4:51 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:23:31 +0530
From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
CC: jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] config: enable dpaaX drivers compilation for ARMv8
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4
This patch enables the NXP DPAA & DPAA2 drivers for
ARMV8 targets. They can be used with standard armv8 config
with command line mempool argument or newly introduced
platform mempool internal registration mechanism.
Note that the dpaa(x) specific config files are still preserved
to continue customer support. They also contain some of the ARM
performance tuning flags. e.g the default ARM cache size of 128
is not optimal for NXP platforms.
However, these configs will eventually be removed once a dynamic
mechanisms are developed to detect the performance settings.
Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
---
config/common_armv8a_linuxapp | 58
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
diff --git a/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp
b/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp
index 790e716..572db11 100644
--- a/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp
+++ b/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp
@@ -34,3 +34,61 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_SFC_EFX_PMD=n
CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_AVP_PMD=n
CONFIG_RTE_SCHED_VECTOR=n
+
+#
+# ARMv8 Specific driver compilation flags
+#
Will it be better if it is enabled in generic config?
If you have any assembly code then you just stub it for non arm64.
Since these are integrate controllers, I guess, there is no issue in
stubbing the non arm64 specific things.
I believe in that way, it will be maintainable. i.e there will not
any case where arm64 config failing but not non arm64 configs.
On the upside, The common code(ethdev, cryptodev) changes will be build
against your driver by all the developers.
It is a good suggestion and we did attempted it and realized that the
amount of changes required are more than expected.
We will attempt it for next release.
However, if you are ok, please ack it in ARM for now.
I take it back. I figured out easy changes to make it compile for x86 as
well.
We will submit the v2.
I think, we need to leave this patch as it is for this release.
We are running into freebsd issue w.r.t common_base
and 32 bit issues with common_linuxapp.
We will do these changes incrementally in next release.
