On 12-06-13 05:00 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
On 06/13/2012 01:55 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 12-06-13 04:52 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 21:47, Darren Hart wrote:
Seems reasonable to me. We should probably have 32b and 64b of this
machine as well.
And x32… :)
From the kernel point of view, these are just configuration extensions
to a base, which is where this discussion started (the kernel, I'm
excluding userspace on purpose). So this should be one machine with
these as overlays, not three different machines.
I would have thought the three different architectures would have called
for three different machines. How would this work from the KMACHINE
meta-data perspective?
I've had dual endian machines for ages for MIPS. This is no
different. You use a common machine, and then just trigger fragments
that change the few options that are different like endianess, etc.
So there's a single KMACHINE definition with additions.
Granted, this was more important when there was a strict 1:1 branch ->
machine mapping. But it still makes sense to keep things as small
as possible. We can do the same thing with three KMACHINE definitions
that include a common base, and that's nominally three machines, but
the slippery slope is that they start to diverge .. since they are
described by three different top level options.
I'm splitting a hair, I just wanted to point out that I wouldn't
call word size, endianess or other ABI differences big differences
in a machine definition.
Cheers,
Bruce
--
Darren
Cheers,
Bruce
Ross
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
