-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Boyer <redacted>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 9:27 PM
To: Juraj Linkeš <redacted>
Cc: Bruce Richardson <redacted>; Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com;
Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com; Phil.Yang@arm.com;
vcchunga@amazon.com; Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com; jerinjacobk@gmail.com;
hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com;
ferruh.yigit@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v14 03/12] build: reformat and move Arm config
and comments

quoted

On Dec 23, 2020, at 6:47 AM, Juraj Linkeš [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

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:

quoted

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?

Overwriting the same value doesn't make much sense and it doesn't even add to readability (as it could easily confuse people), so I'll remove these.

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?

The whole series actually addresses this - it's possible to do that in the "build: add Arm SoC meson option" commit.

-Andrew