[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v15 11/12] build: add Arm SoC meson option

[Thomas Monjalon]

19/01/2021 15:56, Juraj Linkeš:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > 15/01/2021 14:26, Juraj Linkeš:
> > > 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 <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech>
> > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> > [...]
> > > --- 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'
> > [...]
> > > --- 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?