[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] eal/acl: enable acl for armv7-a

[Jianbo Liu]

On 8 December 2015 at 18:03, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 2015-12-08 15:56, Jianbo Liu:
>> On 8 December 2015 at 10:23, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
>> > 2015-12-08 09:50, Jianbo Liu:
>> >> On 8 December 2015 at 09:18, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
>> >> > 2015-12-03 23:02, Jianbo Liu:
>> >> >> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64),y)
>> >> >> +ifneq ($(filter y,$(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM) $(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64)),)
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_ARM
>> >> >> +/* NEON intrinsic vqtbl1q_u8() is not supported in ARMv7-A(AArch32) */
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm convinced there is a good reason why ARMv8 is also called ARCH_ARM64,
>> >> > and ARMv7 may be called AArch32 or ARCH_ARM. But I don't know why?
>> >> >
>> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133
>> >>
>> >> > Is ARCH_ARM32 or ARCH_ARMv7 too simple?
>> >> > Is it possible to have a 32-bit ARMv8?
>> >> Yes, ARMv8-R/M
>> >
>> > So what does mean CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM?
>> > ARMv7? ARM32?
>> > Please consider a renaming.
>>
>> I'd rather not renaming becase it can be both ARMv7 and AARCH32, which
>> are ISA compatibility.
>> If further differentiation is needed, CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARMv7 is added
>> in the config, just like Jan Viktorin did.
>
> I don't understand.
> You say CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM is for ARMv7 and AARCH32, right?
> Both are 32-bit right?
> Why not rename it to CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM32?

I understand that you want to make the naming more clear.
But arm/arm64 are used in Linux kernel, I think it's better to stay the same.