diff mbox series

[1/7] common/octeontx: enable build only on 64bit Linux

Message ID 20210225170238.15581-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers
Series [1/7] common/octeontx: enable build only on 64bit Linux |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula Feb. 25, 2021, 5:02 p.m. UTC 
  From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>

Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.

Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
---
 drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build  | 6 ++++++
 drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Jerin Jacob March 24, 2021, 10:55 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
>
> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>
> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>


Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>



> ---
>  drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build  | 6 ++++++
>  drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build b/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build
> index 203d1ef49..f29b58320 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build
> +++ b/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build
> @@ -2,4 +2,10 @@
>  # Copyright(c) 2018 Cavium, Inc
>  #
>
> +if not is_linux or not dpdk_conf.get('RTE_ARCH_64')
> +       build = false
> +       reason = 'only supported on 64-bit Linux'
> +       subdir_done()
> +endif
> +
>  sources = files('octeontx_mbox.c')
> diff --git a/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build b/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build
> index 84fb11524..3ae106792 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build
> +++ b/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build
> @@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
>  # Copyright(C) 2019 Marvell International Ltd.
>  #
>
> -if not dpdk_conf.get('RTE_ARCH_64')
> +if not is_linux or not dpdk_conf.get('RTE_ARCH_64')
>         build = false
> -       reason = 'only supported on 64-bit'
> +       reason = 'only supported on 64-bit Linux'
>         subdir_done()
>  endif
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Thomas Monjalon March 25, 2021, 10:42 a.m. UTC | #2 
24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >
> > Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> 
> 
> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>

I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
with "common/octeontx" for title for all:

net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux

and applied.
Thomas Monjalon March 25, 2021, 10:46 a.m. UTC | #3 
25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> > >
> > > Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> > 
> > Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> 
> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> 
> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> 
> and applied.

Actually not applied yet.
I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
Ray Kinsella March 25, 2021, 10:58 a.m. UTC | #4 
On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>>>>
>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>>>
>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
>>
>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
>>
>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>>
>> and applied.
> 
> Actually not applied yet.
> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> 
In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.

From the policy ... 
"Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
Thomas Monjalon March 25, 2021, 11:03 a.m. UTC | #5 
25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> >> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>
> >>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> >>
> >> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> >> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> >> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> >>
> >> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>
> >> and applied.
> > 
> > Actually not applied yet.
> > I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> > because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> > I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> > Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> > 
> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> 
> From the policy ... 
> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."

So the patches should wait 21.11.
Everybody agree?
Jerin Jacob March 25, 2021, 12:46 p.m. UTC | #6 
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
> > On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> > >> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> > >>
> > >> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> > >> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> > >> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> > >>
> > >> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> > >> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> > >> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> > >>
> > >> and applied.
> > >
> > > Actually not applied yet.
> > > I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> > > because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> > > I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> > > Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> > >
> > In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> >
> > From the policy ...
> > "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
>
> So the patches should wait 21.11.
> Everybody agree?

Looks good to me to postpone.

@Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon  @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman

Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is
this ABI breakge[1]?

http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/

[1]
From the policy ...
"Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for
hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI
change."
Ray Kinsella March 25, 2021, 12:47 p.m. UTC | #7 
On 25/03/2021 12:46, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>
>> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
>>> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
>>>>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
>>>>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
>>>>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
>>>>>
>>>>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>>>>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>>>>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>>>>>
>>>>> and applied.
>>>>
>>>> Actually not applied yet.
>>>> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
>>>> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
>>>> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
>>>> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
>>>>
>>> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
>>>
>>> From the policy ...
>>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
>>
>> So the patches should wait 21.11.
>> Everybody agree?
> 
> Looks good to me to postpone.
> 
> @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon  @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman
> 
> Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is
> this ABI breakge[1]?
> 
> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
> 
> [1]
> From the policy ...
> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for
> hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI
> change."

+1
Jerin Jacob March 25, 2021, 12:58 p.m. UTC | #8 
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:17 PM Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25/03/2021 12:46, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
> >>> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> >>>>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> >>>>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> >>>>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and applied.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually not applied yet.
> >>>> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> >>>> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> >>>> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> >>>> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> >>>>
> >>> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> >>>
> >>> From the policy ...
> >>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
> >>
> >> So the patches should wait 21.11.
> >> Everybody agree?
> >
> > Looks good to me to postpone.
> >
> > @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon  @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman
> >
> > Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is
> > this ABI breakge[1]?
> >
> > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
> >
> > [1]
> > From the policy ...
> > "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for
> > hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI
> > change."
>
> +1

Is +1 for not to remove the dlb driver or remove it?
Ray Kinsella March 25, 2021, 1:02 p.m. UTC | #9 
On 25/03/2021 12:58, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:17 PM Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/03/2021 12:46, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
>>>>> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
>>>>>>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
>>>>>>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
>>>>>>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>>>>>>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>>>>>>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and applied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually not applied yet.
>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
>>>>>> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
>>>>>> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
>>>>>> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
>>>>>>
>>>>> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the policy ...
>>>>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
>>>>
>>>> So the patches should wait 21.11.
>>>> Everybody agree?
>>>
>>> Looks good to me to postpone.
>>>
>>> @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon  @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman
>>>
>>> Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is
>>> this ABI breakge[1]?
>>>
>>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> From the policy ...
>>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for
>>> hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI
>>> change."
>>
>> +1
> 
> Is +1 for not to remove the dlb driver or remove it?
> 

You'll note the original reply pointing at the ABI Policy was from myself.
So I would be in favor of retention until 21.11. 

Thats said...

We should think about making the rules less strict for 32bit in future, from 21.11 onwards perhaps.
How many OS Vendors are shipping 32bit OSs these days for example?
Thomas Monjalon March 25, 2021, 2:57 p.m. UTC | #10 
25/03/2021 13:46, Jerin Jacob:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
> > > On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > >> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> > > >> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> > > >> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> > > >>
> > > >> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> > > >> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> > > >> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> > > >>
> > > >> and applied.
> > > >
> > > > Actually not applied yet.
> > > > I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> > > > because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> > > > I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> > > > Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> > > >
> > > In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> > >
> > > From the policy ...
> > > "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
> >
> > So the patches should wait 21.11.
> > Everybody agree?
> 
> Looks good to me to postpone.

The v2 is waiting in patchwork with the status "Deferred":
https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=15885&state=*
David Marchand March 25, 2021, 3:01 p.m. UTC | #11 
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 3:57 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> > > >
> > > > From the policy ...
> > > > "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
> > >
> > > So the patches should wait 21.11.
> > > Everybody agree?
> >
> > Looks good to me to postpone.
>
> The v2 is waiting in patchwork with the status "Deferred":
> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=15885&state=*

We need a deprecation notice.
Jerin Jacob March 26, 2021, 10:50 a.m. UTC | #12 
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:32 PM Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25/03/2021 12:58, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:17 PM Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25/03/2021 12:46, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
> >>>>> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>>> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> >>>>>>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula@marvell.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> >>>>>>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> >>>>>>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and applied.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually not applied yet.
> >>>>>> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> >>>>>> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> >>>>>> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> >>>>>> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the policy ...
> >>>>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
> >>>>
> >>>> So the patches should wait 21.11.
> >>>> Everybody agree?
> >>>
> >>> Looks good to me to postpone.
> >>>
> >>> @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon  @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman
> >>>
> >>> Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is
> >>> this ABI breakge[1]?
> >>>
> >>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> From the policy ...
> >>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for
> >>> hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI
> >>> change."
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> > Is +1 for not to remove the dlb driver or remove it?
> >
>
> You'll note the original reply pointing at the ABI Policy was from myself.
> So I would be in favor of retention until 21.11.
>
> Thats said...
>
> We should think about making the rules less strict for 32bit in future, from 21.11 onwards perhaps.
> How many OS Vendors are shipping 32bit OSs these days for example?

Agree on 32bit.

The DLB driver removal patch from @McDaniel, Timothy
http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
is deleting the complete driver. So it does not look like it is
updating the minimum HW requirements
as mentioned in the policy.

So IMO, it is OK to accept his patch for 21.05(ie. remove the driver).
Let me know if there is any objection on this?
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build b/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build
index 203d1ef49..f29b58320 100644
--- a/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build
+++ b/drivers/common/octeontx/meson.build
@@ -2,4 +2,10 @@ 
 # Copyright(c) 2018 Cavium, Inc
 #
 
+if not is_linux or not dpdk_conf.get('RTE_ARCH_64')
+	build = false
+	reason = 'only supported on 64-bit Linux'
+	subdir_done()
+endif
+
 sources = files('octeontx_mbox.c')
diff --git a/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build b/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build
index 84fb11524..3ae106792 100644
--- a/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build
+++ b/drivers/common/octeontx2/meson.build
@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@ 
 # Copyright(C) 2019 Marvell International Ltd.
 #
 
-if not dpdk_conf.get('RTE_ARCH_64')
+if not is_linux or not dpdk_conf.get('RTE_ARCH_64')
 	build = false
-	reason = 'only supported on 64-bit'
+	reason = 'only supported on 64-bit Linux'
 	subdir_done()
 endif