<snip>

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

quoted

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

[off-list ref]

quoted

quoted

quoted

[...]

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.

quoted

quoted

quoted

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.

+1, agree. 'soc' sounds good to me.