From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 24/40] config: enable NXP DPAA PMD
	compilation
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:21:23 +0530
Message-ID: <39f388f3-e547-aa53-e5a9-aea8b04ec9ce@nxp.com>
References: <1499179471-19145-1-git-send-email-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
 <20170823141213.25476-1-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
 <20170823141213.25476-25-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <8761789.OGcidtGilR@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-sn1nam01on0075.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.75])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8519F94
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:40:31 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <8761789.OGcidtGilR@xps>
Content-Language: en-US
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 Friday 22 September 2017 03:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 23/08/2017 16:11, Shreyansh Jain:
>> --- a/config/defconfig_arm64-dpaa-linuxapp-gcc
>> +++ b/config/defconfig_arm64-dpaa-linuxapp-gcc
>> +#
>> +# Compile Environment Abstraction Layer
>> +#
>> +CONFIG_RTE_MAX_LCORE=4
>> +CONFIG_RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES=1
>> +CONFIG_RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE=64
>> +CONFIG_RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM=128
> 
> This should be part of the SoC introduction.
> 
> The rest of this patch can be squashed with PMD skeleton.

Ok. I will revisit this.

> 
> [...]
>> --- a/mk/rte.app.mk
>> +++ b/mk/rte.app.mk
>> @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BNX2X_PMD)      += -lrte_pmd_bnx2x -lz
>>   _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BNXT_PMD)       += -lrte_pmd_bnxt
>>   _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BOND)       += -lrte_pmd_bond
>>   _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CXGBE_PMD)      += -lrte_pmd_cxgbe
>> +_LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA_PMD)       += -lrte_pmd_dpaa
>>   _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_PMD)      += -lrte_pmd_dpaa2
>>   _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_E1000_PMD)      += -lrte_pmd_e1000
>>   _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ENA_PMD)        += -lrte_pmd_ena
>> @@ -182,6 +183,10 @@ _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_PMD)      += -lrte_bus_fslmc
>>   _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_PMD)      += -lrte_mempool_dpaa2
>>   endif # CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_PMD
>>   
>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA_PMD),y)
>> +_LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA_PMD)       += -lrte_bus_dpaa
>> +endif
> 
> It does not make sense. Please read it carefully.
> The same config condition is used twice.
> 
> And the dependency should be on the same line as the PMD link above.
> 
> The same mistake was done for DPAA2. Please fix it separately.
> 
> 

This definitely is fishy. I am not sure why I did this - but it seems 
that I was trying to base this linking on BUS_DPAA was available. 
Apologies. I will fix this.