On 2023/04/20 16:12, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2023/04/20 16:10, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 9:40 AM
To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richard...@intel.com>;
Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; nd <n...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] config/arm: Do not require processor
information
On 2023/04/17 16:41, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 8:42 PM
To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richard...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] config/arm: Do not require processor information
DPDK can be built even without exact processor information for x86
and ppc so allow to build for Arm even if we don't know the
targeted processor is
unknown.
Hi Akihiko,
The design idea was to require an explicit generic build.
Default/native build doesn't fall back to generic build when SoC
info is not on the list.
So the user has less chance to generate a suboptimal binary by
accident.
Hi,
It is true that the suboptimal binary can result, but the rationale
here is that we
tolerate that for x86 and ppc so it should not really matter for Arm
too. On x86 and ppc
you don't need to modify meson.build just to run dts on a development
machine.
What modification do you need for a development machine?
I suppose "meson setup build -Dplatform=generic" will generate a
binary that can run
on your development machine.
I didn't describe the situation well. I use DPDK Test Suite for testing
and it determines what flags to be passed to Meson. You need to modify
DPDK's meson.build or DTS to get it built.
Regards,
Akihiko Odaki
Hi,
Can you have a look at this again?
Regards,
Akihiko Odaki
