From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: compile avp driver only on intel 64
	bit
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:20:49 +0100
Message-ID: <0215e8d1-a6f8-6aac-03f0-e8723b7e5c26@intel.com>
References: <20170404163654.86100-1-allain.legacy@windriver.com>
 <4712ffa9-b81c-bdef-ccc0-ae508d5b327d@intel.com>
 <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523969019F1@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: "Legacy, Allain" <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E292FDD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  4 Apr 2017 19:20:51 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523969019F1@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 4/4/2017 6:17 PM, Legacy, Allain wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 1:12 PM
> <...>
>>
>> Right now compiler config files only have compiler and architecture configs,
>> although it is OK to update them, to be consistent with what other PMDs did,
>> what do you think:
>>
>> Keep AVP config enabled in "common_linuxapp"
>>
>> Disable AVP in following configs:
>> defconfig_arm64-armv8a-linuxapp-gcc
>> defconfig_arm-armv7a-linuxapp-gcc
>> defconfig_ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc
> 
> If that is your preference I can update the patch but either way a compiler config file is going to be changed.   
> I did it the current way so that if a new architecture came along that they would not need to know to set AVP=n in their file.

Indeed, this makes sense.

> 
> Do you still want me to align to your suggestion?

I still believe good to be consistent with current usage. They all can
be fixed later, for example when a new architecture added, in one go.

Thanks,
ferruh