On 2013-04-03 20:38, Koen Kooi wrote:
So how is this different from https://github.com/naguirre/meta-cubox ?
I am in contact with the author of that layer. My work started as a fork of that, since the layer did not work for me, but since I anyway was changing pretty much all of it from the ground up, I decided to start my own. Now, covers more features of the CuBox, and supports both soft- and hardfp in all recipes.
Just like https://github.com/naguirre/meta-cubox you're mixing DISTRO policy in the machine files by setting the tuning to hardfloat. Don't do that. If you want hardfloat, set that in your distro config, not in your machine config.
Do I understand it correctly that I should drop "marvellpj4hf" from https://github.com/dv1/meta-cubox/blob/master/conf/machine/include/tune-marvell-pj4.inc , or at least not set it as DEFAULTTUNE, not even with the ?= operation, and just use "marvellpj4" instead ? Because it is the distros decision to add the "callconvention-hard" feature?
The reason I ask that is because when I was writing the tune, I stumbled upon https://github.com/openembedded/oe-core/blob/master/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7a.inc , which includes armv7a, armv7ahf . This confuses me. Why is it OK there to mix in the callconvention?
Finally, is there a way to give a distro a "hint" about what is preferred for a machine (soft/hardfp)? One that the distro is free to ignore or respect?
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
