On 11/4/10 1:02 PM, Leon Woestenberg wrote:

Hello Mark,

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Mark Hatle<mark.hatle@...> wrote:

On 11/4/10 8:53 AM, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
Just an FYI.. the compiler flags for e500v1:

-mcpu=8540 -mfloat-gprs=single -mspe=yes -mabi=spe

and for e500v2:

-mcpu=8548 -mfloat-gprs=double -mspe=yes -mabi=spe

Neither of those would be compatible with the existing "ppc" packaging arch.
We will need to generate at least one new packaging arch type, likely 2
(one for each). Maybe called ppc_spe or something similar?

In OpenEmbedded we use the core variant as the packaging name:

TARGET_CC_ARCH = "-mcpu=8548 -mspe=yes -mabi=spe -mhard-float
-mfloat-gprs=double"
BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "ppce500v2"
FEED_ARCH = "ppce500v2"
PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppce500v2"

Does that make sense?

Regards,

I think this is an area we need to coordinate.. I'm not against calling is ppce500v2 for right now. However, I think this is a place we need to coordinate efforts. I'm going to attempt to pull together a list of Linux ABIs & potential optimizations in the Yocto wiki.

The reason I bring this up is that over the years at Wind River, and my previous experience at MontaVista... and watching Emdebian and other projects.. _everyone_ names their package architectures differently.. because people only have a small view on the problem. We finally have enough history to have a chance at indicating what the actual ABIs are, and how the compatibility matrix may fill out. (also giving us a change to finally give these architectures reasonable naming schemes!)

--Mark