-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon <redacted>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 2:42 PM
To: Juraj Linkeš <redacted>
Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com; 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; aboyer@pensando.io; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v15 11/12] build: add Arm SoC meson option

15/01/2021 14:26, Juraj Linkeš:

quoted

Add Arm SoC configuration to Arm meson.build and add a meson option to
enable those options for native builds. This is preferable to
specifying a cross file when doing aarch64 -> aarch64 builds, since
the cross file specifies the toolchain as well.

Signed-off-by: Juraj Linkeš <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <redacted>

[...]

quoted

--- a/config/arm/arm64_graviton2_linux_gcc
+++ b/config/arm/arm64_graviton2_linux_gcc
 [properties]
-implementor_id = '0x41'
-implementor_pn = '0xd0c'
-max_lcores = 64
-max_numa_nodes = 1
-numa = false
+soc = 'graviton2'

[...]

quoted

--- a/meson_options.txt
+++ b/meson_options.txt
+option('arm_soc', type: 'string', value: '',
+	description: 'Specify if you want to build for a particular aarch64
+Arm SoC when building on an aarch64 machine.')

This is more elegant, I like how cross and native share almost the same option.

Why the option is named "arm_soc" and not just "soc"?
The same option could be used by other archs, isn't it?

Agree that a more generic name would be better. I'll change it to "soc" if there are no other suggestions.