On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:52:19PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

19/01/2021 15:56, Juraj Linkeš:

quoted

From: Thomas Monjalon <redacted>

quoted

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.

Another name could be "machine".
Should it be the same mechanism as compiling for a specific x86 CPU
from an x86 machine?

I'd rather not re-use the term "machine", for a new use, better to use a
new term IMHO.