14/04/2019 20:19, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 14/04/2019 16:40, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > There is no guarantee of primary part number (machine names) uniqueness > > between implementors. > > > > I think we don't speak the same language :) By machine name, I mean what we > > set in RTE_MACHINE, like octeontx2. > > As you know, The system probes "implementor_id" and "implementor_pn" > Values. There is nothing like machine name in meson and in order to keep > Synergy with native build, we need to just follow, "implementor_id" > and "implementor_pn". Now, it is possible to have "implemetor_id" to > "implementor_pn" to machine name lookup but Unlike, "make" based > Build system, meson supports supporting a lot of machines(like RTE_MACHINE), > with that structure. So converting to another intermediate called "machine > string" > will have more overhead IMO.
We already have this string with RTE_MACHINE. You already set RTE_MACHINE based on id and pn. I don't see any overhead. Anyway, no need to discuss it more without any real code.
