Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Patard <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hector Oron <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Hello, >> Hi, >> >>> >>> I am not sure how current Debian subarchitectures map to. Is it just >>> a giving name? Do they map to platform devices in linux kernel? Do >>> they map to machine devices? >> >> I've not checked but I guess it's following the name of the mach-* >> directories in the kernel. >> >>> >>> If I were to add support for Freescales' i.MX51 cores, which would >>> be the agreed subarchitecture? >>> * mx51 >>> * mx5 >>> * mx5x >>> * imx51 >>> * imx5 >>> * imx5x >> >> I would say mx5 as in mach-mx5 in the kernel but someone needs to check >> if it's really possible to have mx50/mx51/mx53 in same kernel. I >> remember some people on l-a-k ml saying it was not possible. > > ignore what i wrote - arnaud's making a good point. bizarre as the > discrepancy between the official name from freescale and the choice by > lakml to drop the "i" is, following the exact same choice made by the > linux kernel team(s) makes a lot more sense than inventing something > from arbitrary choice.
Freescale is/(was ?) using mxc for common "part" of their SoC and was using mach-mx51 for imx51 in their bsp tree. iirc, they've now dropped mach-mx51 in favor of mach-m5 like in mainline. Don't know about how was handled imx50/53 in their tree. Arnaud -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
