20/01/2021 09:41, Juraj Linkeš:

From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <redacted>

quoted

quoted

20/01/2021 02:04, Honnappa Nagarahalli:

quoted

quoted

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

--- 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.')

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.

Another possible word is "platform",
as in http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/platform/index.html

I am fine with 'platform' too.

'platform' is likely the best and actually works nicely with http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/85956/. Taken together, 'platform' could be either 'native', 'generic' or an soc, which is, I believe, exactly what we want.

I am not sure what we want :)
We need to specify the instruction set, and the specific target.
We could deduce the instruction set from the target,
but I think it is good to be able to overwrite the instruction set
in case there can be multiple instruction sets for a target.

I think "native" and "generic" should be specified as instruction set,
in the existing option "machine" or renamed as "instruction_set" or "isa".

Let's imagine the first option is "isa" and the new second option is "platform".
We can have a default "isa" per "platform".
The default "platform" would have a default "isa": native or generic?

What else do we need?