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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"