[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] eal/acl: enable acl for armv7-a

[Jan Viktorin]

On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:38:46 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:

> 2015-12-08 18:21, Jianbo Liu:
> > On 8 December 2015 at 18:03, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:  
> > > 2015-12-08 15:56, Jianbo Liu:  
> > >> On 8 December 2015 at 10:23, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:  
> > >> > 2015-12-08 09:50, Jianbo Liu:  
> > >> >> On 8 December 2015 at 09:18, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:  
> > >> >> > 2015-12-03 23:02, Jianbo Liu:  
> > >> >> >> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64),y)
> > >> >> >> +ifneq ($(filter y,$(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM) $(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64)),)  
> > >> >> > [...]  
> > >> >> >> +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_ARM
> > >> >> >> +/* NEON intrinsic vqtbl1q_u8() is not supported in ARMv7-A(AArch32) */  
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I'm convinced there is a good reason why ARMv8 is also called ARCH_ARM64,
> > >> >> > and ARMv7 may be called AArch32 or ARCH_ARM. But I don't know why?
> > >> >> >  
> > >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133
> > >> >>  
> > >> >> > Is ARCH_ARM32 or ARCH_ARMv7 too simple?
> > >> >> > Is it possible to have a 32-bit ARMv8?  
> > >> >> Yes, ARMv8-R/M
> > >> >
> > >> > So what does mean CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM?
> > >> > ARMv7? ARM32?
> > >> > Please consider a renaming.  
> > >>
> > >> I'd rather not renaming becase it can be both ARMv7 and AARCH32, which
> > >> are ISA compatibility.
> > >> If further differentiation is needed, CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is added
> > >> in the config, just like Jan Viktorin did.  
> > >
> > > I don't understand.
> > > You say CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM is for ARMv7 and AARCH32, right?
> > > Both are 32-bit right?
> > > Why not rename it to CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM32?  
> > 
> > I understand that you want to make the naming more clear.
> > But arm/arm64 are used in Linux kernel, I think it's better to stay the same.  
> 
> Linux supports ARM for a very long time. Doing a rename now is costly.
> The DPDK support is recent. Keeping a bad naming scheme because an
> old project follows this scheme is insane.

I think, the idea about having CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM32 is not bad. We
should do it soon, however.

Regards
Jan