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

2016-10-11 Thread Gary Thomas 

On 2016-10-12 03:24, Gary Thomas wrote:

On 2016-10-11 15:54, Otavio Salvador wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post  wrote:

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

DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"


Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine
overrides setting. Please take a look.



I started with a clone of imx6ulevk.conf which does not contain this



Thanks for the pointers.  Somehow I ended up with an incorrect
override in my i.MX6UL machine config files which I've now corrected.

--

Gary Thomas |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates  |Embedded world

--
___
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale

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

2016-10-11 Thread Gary Thomas 

On 2016-10-11 15:54, Otavio Salvador wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post  wrote:

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

DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"


Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine
overrides setting. Please take a look.



I started with a clone of imx6ulevk.conf which does not contain this

--

Gary Thomas |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates  |Embedded world

--
___
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale

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

2016-10-11 Thread Otavio Salvador 
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post  wrote:
> We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL
>
> DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"

Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine
overrides setting. Please take a look.

-- 
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
-- 
___
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale

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

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post 
We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL

DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"


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

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Gary Thomas <g...@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=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0=AF0AUSh3Vs1f1nSKI%2F3GZOvpDmt8uPe5qK3SKdwDYss%3D=0

https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcode.ossystems.com.br=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0=saOjj0d7rK2QeQFvNOwzfbXPp6OP7vMSm1Ul5mUBtug%3D=0
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
--
___
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.yoctoproject.org%2Flistinfo%2Fmeta-freescale=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0=GR0alZx5pe1vlXhk438emCNLRGLHFOoDYc%2Bv8l5SRjI%3D=0
-- 
___
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale

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

2016-10-11 Thread Otavio Salvador 
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Gary Thomas  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
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
-- 
___
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale

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

2016-10-11 Thread Gary Thomas 

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?

--

Gary Thomas |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates  |Embedded world

--
___
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale