[meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

Lauren Post lauren.post at nxp.com
Tue Oct 11 06:36:36 PDT 2016

We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL

DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"

-----Original Message-----
From: meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:20 AM
To: Gary Thomas <gary at mlbassoc.com>
Cc: meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Gary Thomas <gary at mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> I'm working with machines that have i.MX6Q/DL and i.MX6UL and noticed 
> that they have quite different tuning.
> i.MX6Q:
>   TUNE_FEATURES     = "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard
> cortexa9"
>   TARGET_FPU        = "hard"
> i.MX6UL:
>   TUNE_FEATURES     = "arm armv7ve vfp thumb neon cortexa7"
>   TARGET_FPU        = "softfp"
> I've not adjusted any GCC tuning for these targets.  Just wondering 
> why the i.MX6Q is hardfp and the i.MX6UL is soft?  Anyone know why 
> this choice was made?

I don't foresee any problem in using hardfp for UL.

Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ossystems.com.br&data=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=AF0AUSh3Vs1f1nSKI%2F3GZOvpDmt8uPe5qK3SKdwDYss%3D&reserved=0        https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcode.ossystems.com.br&data=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=saOjj0d7rK2QeQFvNOwzfbXPp6OP7vMSm1Ul5mUBtug%3D&reserved=0
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org

More information about the meta-freescale mailing list