Re: [OE-core] The future of qemuarm
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Aníbal Limón wrote: > > > On 10/17/2016 10:20 AM, Pascal Bach wrote: >> >>> >>> Whatever we replace it with has to be part of linux-yocto and the meta data >>> that is >>> carried there, so it can be used for the sanity/smoke test machine for arch >>> arm. >>> >>> As such, it has to be feature compatible (network capabilities, disk boot, >>> etc) with >>> the existing arm versatile 926ejs platform >>> >>> There have been newer variants for ages, but since there's been no >>> compelling >>> reason to upgrade, I continue to carry the existing platform support along >>> to the >>> new kernels. (In fact, I've had a qemuarma9 around for nearly 3 years now, >>> but >>> it lacked some disk controller support). >> My main motivation is to get valgrind running. This requires at least armv7 >> to be useful. >> Most physical boards are not powerful enough (memory and cpu) to do real >> work with valgrind. >> QEMU would be helpful for that. >>> >>> From the kernel point of view, updating the platform doesn't have any big >>> benefits, >>> but for userspace it could shake out issues with toolchains and >>> instructions, so >>> there is a gain to be had there. >> In order to find more bugs there would be multiple qemuarms (qemuarm = >> armv5, qemuarmv7 = armv7, ...). >> Is this what you are suggesting? >>> >>> If someone is motivated, I'm happy to help work on an update to the core >>> qemuarm >>> platform .. it just has to meet the criteria above. > > I like the idea to have a new version of qemuarm instead of armv5 but > that needs to be considerate in terms of, > > Do we aim to support multiple versions of qemuarm?, i'm saying this > because of the comments by Bruce about all the testing and the effort > needed to support another qemuarm variant. > > If we only want one version of qemuarm, what version you suggest? and why?. > > Finally i like the idea to be able to use valgrind into emulation that > will speed up debugging times. This has been discussed more than once in past and armv5 being the lowest common denominator for ARM devices always won the battle. It still might be, however it will be interesting to know how many folks still require armv5te qemuarm. A raise of hands might show interest. meta-linaro does support v7 based qemu here https://git.linaro.org/openembedded/meta-linaro.git/tree/HEAD:/meta-linaro/conf/machine should we move this to oe-core, may b discussing it further on architecture list can yield better results. > > Cheers, > alimon > >>> >> >> Pascal >> > > > -- > ___ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] The future of qemuarm
On 10/17/2016 10:20 AM, Pascal Bach wrote: > >> >> Whatever we replace it with has to be part of linux-yocto and the meta data >> that is >> carried there, so it can be used for the sanity/smoke test machine for arch >> arm. >> >> As such, it has to be feature compatible (network capabilities, disk boot, >> etc) with >> the existing arm versatile 926ejs platform >> >> There have been newer variants for ages, but since there's been no compelling >> reason to upgrade, I continue to carry the existing platform support along >> to the >> new kernels. (In fact, I've had a qemuarma9 around for nearly 3 years now, >> but >> it lacked some disk controller support). > My main motivation is to get valgrind running. This requires at least armv7 > to be useful. > Most physical boards are not powerful enough (memory and cpu) to do real work > with valgrind. > QEMU would be helpful for that. >> >> From the kernel point of view, updating the platform doesn't have any big >> benefits, >> but for userspace it could shake out issues with toolchains and >> instructions, so >> there is a gain to be had there. > In order to find more bugs there would be multiple qemuarms (qemuarm = armv5, > qemuarmv7 = armv7, ...). > Is this what you are suggesting? >> >> If someone is motivated, I'm happy to help work on an update to the core >> qemuarm >> platform .. it just has to meet the criteria above. I like the idea to have a new version of qemuarm instead of armv5 but that needs to be considerate in terms of, Do we aim to support multiple versions of qemuarm?, i'm saying this because of the comments by Bruce about all the testing and the effort needed to support another qemuarm variant. If we only want one version of qemuarm, what version you suggest? and why?. Finally i like the idea to be able to use valgrind into emulation that will speed up debugging times. Cheers, alimon >> > > Pascal > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] The future of qemuarm
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Pascal Bach wrote: > > > > > Whatever we replace it with has to be part of linux-yocto and the meta > data that is > > carried there, so it can be used for the sanity/smoke test machine for > arch arm. > > > > As such, it has to be feature compatible (network capabilities, disk > boot, etc) with > > the existing arm versatile 926ejs platform > > > > There have been newer variants for ages, but since there's been no > compelling > > reason to upgrade, I continue to carry the existing platform support > along to the > > new kernels. (In fact, I've had a qemuarma9 around for nearly 3 years > now, but > > it lacked some disk controller support). > My main motivation is to get valgrind running. This requires at least > armv7 to be useful. > Most physical boards are not powerful enough (memory and cpu) to do real > work with valgrind. > QEMU would be helpful for that. > > > > From the kernel point of view, updating the platform doesn't have any > big benefits, > > but for userspace it could shake out issues with toolchains and > instructions, so > > there is a gain to be had there. > In order to find more bugs there would be multiple qemuarms (qemuarm = > armv5, qemuarmv7 = armv7, ...). > Is this what you are suggesting? > for oe-core, no. Just one qemuarm is all that we can realistically handle. I was just saying that from the kernel build/driver point of view, it doesn't really matter which one we use, as long as there is one. Hence why it is still the versatile. If we update, I'll deprecate the arm versatile 926ejs and switch to a newer qemuarm variant by default. As long as it meets the minimum standards for the oe-core/autobuilder/ kernel tests, a switch is possible. Bruce > > > > If someone is motivated, I'm happy to help work on an update to the core > qemuarm > > platform .. it just has to meet the criteria above. > > > > Pascal > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] The future of qemuarm
> > Whatever we replace it with has to be part of linux-yocto and the meta data > that is > carried there, so it can be used for the sanity/smoke test machine for arch > arm. > > As such, it has to be feature compatible (network capabilities, disk boot, > etc) with > the existing arm versatile 926ejs platform > > There have been newer variants for ages, but since there's been no compelling > reason to upgrade, I continue to carry the existing platform support along to > the > new kernels. (In fact, I've had a qemuarma9 around for nearly 3 years now, but > it lacked some disk controller support). My main motivation is to get valgrind running. This requires at least armv7 to be useful. Most physical boards are not powerful enough (memory and cpu) to do real work with valgrind. QEMU would be helpful for that. > > From the kernel point of view, updating the platform doesn't have any big > benefits, > but for userspace it could shake out issues with toolchains and instructions, > so > there is a gain to be had there. In order to find more bugs there would be multiple qemuarms (qemuarm = armv5, qemuarmv7 = armv7, ...). Is this what you are suggesting? > > If someone is motivated, I'm happy to help work on an update to the core > qemuarm > platform .. it just has to meet the criteria above. > Pascal -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] The future of qemuarm
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Pascal Bach wrote: > Hi > > I read several discussions about lifting the default qemuarm target to > armv7 or higher. > On the mailinglist and on the internet I also found several mentions about > machines qemuarmv7 and qemuarma8, but I didn't find any working machine > configs for them. > > What are the planes here? > > Is the goal to increase the default to a higher arm version? > > Is there a bsp layer for other qemuarm variants (cortex-a8, ...)? > Whatever we replace it with has to be part of linux-yocto and the meta data that is carried there, so it can be used for the sanity/smoke test machine for arch arm. As such, it has to be feature compatible (network capabilities, disk boot, etc) with the existing arm versatile 926ejs platform There have been newer variants for ages, but since there's been no compelling reason to upgrade, I continue to carry the existing platform support along to the new kernels. (In fact, I've had a qemuarma9 around for nearly 3 years now, but it lacked some disk controller support). >From the kernel point of view, updating the platform doesn't have any big benefits, but for userspace it could shake out issues with toolchains and instructions, so there is a gain to be had there. If someone is motivated, I'm happy to help work on an update to the core qemuarm platform .. it just has to meet the criteria above. Cheers, Bruce > > Regards > Pascal > > -- > ___ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] The future of qemuarm
> > Is the goal to increase the default to a higher arm version? > > Is there a bsp layer for other qemuarm variants (cortex-a8, ...)? > > > There is a qemuarm64 in master which is aarch64 based. > I'm aware of qemuarm64 but I was more talking about 32-bit arm. Pascal -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] The future of qemuarm
On 17 October 2016 at 12:18, Pascal Bach wrote: > I read several discussions about lifting the default qemuarm target to > armv7 or higher. > On the mailinglist and on the internet I also found several mentions about > machines qemuarmv7 and qemuarma8, but I didn't find any working machine > configs for them. > > What are the planes here? > > Is the goal to increase the default to a higher arm version? > > Is there a bsp layer for other qemuarm variants (cortex-a8, ...)? > There is a qemuarm64 in master which is aarch64 based. Ross -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
[OE-core] The future of qemuarm
Hi I read several discussions about lifting the default qemuarm target to armv7 or higher. On the mailinglist and on the internet I also found several mentions about machines qemuarmv7 and qemuarma8, but I didn't find any working machine configs for them. What are the planes here? Is the goal to increase the default to a higher arm version? Is there a bsp layer for other qemuarm variants (cortex-a8, ...)? Regards Pascal -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
