[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/4] meson: add infra to support machine specific flags

[Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran]

> > > > +machine_args_cavium = [
> > > > +	['default', ['-march=armv8-a+crc+crypto','-mcpu=thunderx']],
> > > > +	['native', ['-march=native']],
> > > > +	['0xa1', ['-mcpu=thunderxt88'], flags_thunderx_extra],
> > > > +	['0xa2', ['-mcpu=thunderxt81'], flags_thunderx_extra],
> > > > +	['0xa3', ['-mcpu=thunderxt83'], flags_thunderx_extra]]
> > >
> > > I think we should have a simpler model.
> > > We need only to know the machine name and get all the related
> > > machine config.
> > > In native compilation, machine name is guessed from implementor id
> > > and pn (from config/arm/armv8_machine.py). We can directly output
> > > the machine name from this script and leave the naming logic in this script.
> > > In the cross-compilation config files (config/arm/*), we can just
> > > specify the machine name.
> > > Then every machine config (machine_args and dpdk_conf) would be
> > > specified in some arrays based on the machine name.
> > > Of course, we can keep some common default values.
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > This patch was around last three months. It reached upto v8.
> > I think, in that last minute for RC2, We cannot take major rework on
> > this as it needs to tested for Other arm64 platform too. It was pulled out from
> RC1 because other pcap issue from meson.
> > Now its not fair to say to rework the meson stuff now.
> > I suggest to take other rework in next release.
> 
> I was not confortable with this patch without being able to say why.
> Yesterday I spent more time to understand and see what may be improved.
> I agree it is late, so it won't block this patch for 19.05.
> Do you agree this file can be improved?

Moving to  the all to static config file is an option but we lose the flexibility
of runtime detecting the options and few of them are probing at runtime based
on gcc versions and mcpu combination etc.
I am not expert in meson area and not sure meson/python has better data strcture for this other than
list/array combo. If Bruce has any feedback on this, then we
will try to prototype it.






> Please would you like to look at reworking during next cycle?
> Thanks
>