[oe] introducing a new architecture/machine; policy ? (and a question)
raj.khem at gmail.com
Wed Jun 23 19:19:33 CEST 2010
On (23/06/10 13:16), Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2010/6/23 Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On 23-06-10 12:07, Philip Balister wrote:
> >> On 06/23/2010 12:03 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:54:21 +0200
> >>> Frans Meulenbroeks<fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 2010/6/23 Graeme Gregory<dp at xora.org.uk>:
> >>>>>>>> Also I don't feel empowered to make changes in distribution
> >>>>>>>> specific files.
> >>>>> Why not, chances are Angstrom maintainers would be quite happy for
> >>>>> you to patch angstrom*.conf if you ask us.
> >>>>> Graeme
> >>>> distribution != angstrom
> >>>> There are more distributions out there.
> >> Right now, toolchain selection is done in distro files not machine
> >> files. I agree this is not the clearest approach, however adding the
> >> toolchain selection to the machine files may have unexpected side effects.
> > Think of multimachine builds. What happens when someone else adds
> > *another* nios2 based machine with different toolchain versions, how do
> > I know which toolchain avahi_1.0_nios2.ipk was compiled with
> If toolchain is interesting to know in ipk's it should be part of the name.
> And note that I am really in favour of an architecture specific
> solution, not a machine one.
> That is why I used an include file to contain the pinnings.
> And actually the situation with nios2 is much much worse.
> As it is a soft-core people can come up with all kind of variants.
> (e.g. with/without fp).
not new. Other arches have similar variants already in OE
> Actually nios2 adds pragma's to gcc to select
> which instructions are there and which not.
Well I would have preferred commandline options that way you could
have many variants and we could have overrides like we have arm sub-arches
> Not sure whether the latter is a good idea as it is one of the things
> that fail moving to a newer gcc.
> The good news is that most of the variants used have different
> peripherals, but seem to stick to just a few cpu cores.
> (nios2 is used as a generic name for the SoC as well as the core,
> doesn't help to separate things either).
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
More information about the Openembedded-devel