Thread (463 messages) 463 messages, 15 authors, 2021-04-15

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v14 03/12] build: reformat and move Arm config and comments

From: Andrew Boyer <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-11 20:26:54

quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Dec 23, 2020, at 6:47 AM, Juraj Linkeš [off-list ref] wrote:

Change formatting so that it's more consistent and readable, add/modify
comments/stdout messages, move configuration options to more appropriate
places and make the order consistent according to these rules:
1. First list generic configuration options, then list options that may
  be overwritten. List SoC-specific options last.
2. For SoC-specific options, list number of cores before the number of
  NUMA nodes, to make it consistent with config/meson.build.

Signed-off-by: Juraj Linkeš <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <redacted>
---
config/arm/arm64_armv8_linux_gcc              | 12 +--
config/arm/meson.build                        | 96 +++++++++++--------
.../linux_gsg/cross_build_dpdk_for_arm64.rst  | 34 +++++++
3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

...
@@ -22,69 +23,86 @@ flags_common = [
	['RTE_SCHED_VECTOR', false],
	['RTE_ARM_USE_WFE', false],
+	['RTE_ARCH_ARM64', true],
+	['RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE', 128]
]

+# implementer specific aarch64 flags, with middle priority
+# (will overwrite common flags)
flags_implementer_generic = [
	['RTE_MACHINE', '"armv8a"'],
-	['RTE_MAX_LCORE', 256],
	['RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL', true],
-	['RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE', 128]]
+	['RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE', 128],
+	['RTE_MAX_LCORE', 256]
+]
...
All of these other instances of [‘RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE’, 128] are just repeating the values from flags_common. Would it be clearer to omit the duplicates?

I can imagine a case where SoC uses 128, overriding implementer value of 64, overriding default value of 128 - but is that worth worrying about?

-Andrew
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help