On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Mark Hatle <email@example.com> wrote:
On 11/4/10 1:02 PM, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
I think this is an area we need to coordinate.. I'm not against calling is
and for e500v2:In OpenEmbedded we use the core variant as the packaging name:
-mcpu=8548 -mfloat-gprs=double -mspe=yes -mabi=spe
Neither of those would be compatible with the existing "ppc" packaging
We will need to generate at least one new packaging arch type, likely 2
(one for each). Maybe called ppc_spe or something similar?
TARGET_CC_ARCH = "-mcpu=8548 -mspe=yes -mabi=spe -mhard-float
BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "ppce500v2"
FEED_ARCH = "ppce500v2"
PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppce500v2"
Does that make sense?
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!)
I don't see how we could be "final" on this, it seems a returning
topic every few years.
To bring in the OpenEmbedded arch namespace and our optimizations,
from the "master" branch at OpenEmbedded:http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/tree/conf/machine/include?h=master