From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] eal/arm: add 64-bit armv8 version of rte_memcpy.h Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:59:12 +0530 Message-ID: <20151102162911.GC1869@localhost.localdomain> References: <1446212959-19832-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <1446212959-19832-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <20151102045728.GB16413@localhost.localdomain> <56375597.8070805@intel.com> <20151102125743.GA9506@localhost.localdomain> <5637809B.1000806@intel.com> <20151102163627.7a08bcc5@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> <563785FD.2080809@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Hunt, David" Return-path: Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0060.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.60]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B9F5949 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:29:39 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <563785FD.2080809@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 03:49:17PM +0000, Hunt, David wrote: > On 02/11/2015 15:36, Jan Viktorin wrote: > >On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:26:19 +0000 > --snip-- > >It was looking like we can share a lot of common code for both > >architectures. I didn't know how much different are the cpuflags. > > CPU flags for ARMv8 are looking like this now. Quite different to the ARMv7 > ones. > > static const struct feature_entry cpu_feature_table[] = { > FEAT_DEF(FP, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 0) > FEAT_DEF(ASIMD, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 1) > FEAT_DEF(EVTSTRM, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 2) > FEAT_DEF(AES, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 3) > FEAT_DEF(PMULL, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 4) > FEAT_DEF(SHA1, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 5) > FEAT_DEF(SHA2, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 6) > FEAT_DEF(CRC32, 0x00000001, 0, REG_HWCAP, 7) > FEAT_DEF(AARCH32, 0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 0) > FEAT_DEF(AARCH64, 0x00000001, 0, REG_PLATFORM, 1) > }; > > >IMHO, it'd be better to have two directories arm and arm64. I thought > >to refer from arm64 to arm where possible. But I don't know whether is > >this possible with the DPDK build system. > > I think both methodologies have their pros and cons. However, I'd lean > towards the common directory with the "filename_32/64.h" scheme, as that > similar to the x86 methodology, and we don't need to tweak the include paths > to pull files from multiple directories. > I agree. Jan, could you please send the next version with filename_32/64.h for atomic and cpuflags(ie for all header files). I can re-base and send the complete arm64 patch based on your version. Thanks, Jerin > Dave >