On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:34:02PM -0500, Scott Sullivan wrote: > Ah, I knew there was something bugging me. > > Thomas, wanting a armhf port for the cubox is, to use a bit of > hyperbole, like wanting an 64bit port for your i686. Allow me to set > up some background information then explain.
The original cubox as a marvell 510 CPU, which is ARMv7, and runs armhf just fine, as long as you have a kernel for it. The one on my desk at work is running Debian armhf SID at the moment, with a custom compiled kernel. Performance wise it is somewhere between a Cortex-A8 and a Cortex-A9. > Debian's armhf port is for ARMv7 instruction set hardware which > mandated the inclusion of floating point hardware. > https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort > > Debian's armel is for older arm instruction sets that where a > floating point hardware was not mandatory in the chips. > https://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort > > Your Cubox uses a Marvell Kirkwood system on a chip (SoC). That SoC > was base on a ARMv5 instruction set. As such it is supported by the > armel port only. Much like 32bit intel hardware is only supported by > the i386. The cubox is NOT a kirkwood. It is an armada. So the rest of the email is just irrelevant to the cubox. -- Len Sorensen --- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - [email protected] http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
