[OE-core] [PATCHv2][RFC] arch-armv7ve.inc: respect armv7a override as well

[Andre McCurdy]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> wrote:
> * in all cases we currently have we consider armv7ve to be compatible with armv7a

Is this a short term workaround or a long term solution?

If it's a long term solution then how will armv7m and armv7r be
handled? They are likely to need to duplicate a lot of the current
armv7a over-rides too.

Maybe adding a generic "armv7" over-ride which can be enabled by all
armv7 variants is a better option?

Either way, I'd like to continue cleaning up of the existing armv7a
over-rides (e.g. the libav armv7a specific optimisation is likely
bogus and should be removed, etc).


> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa at gmail.com>
> ---
>  meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7ve.inc | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7ve.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7ve.inc
> index 79e1ef6..d0fdff7 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7ve.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7ve.inc
> @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ DEFAULTTUNE ?= "armv7ve"
>  TUNEVALID[armv7ve] = "Enable instructions for ARMv7ve"
>  TUNECONFLICTS[armv7ve] = "armv4 armv5 armv6 armv7 armv7a"
>  TUNE_CCARGS .= "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv7ve', ' -march=armv7ve', '', d)}"
> -MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv7ve', 'armv7ve:', '' ,d)}"
> +# In all cases we currently have we consider armv7ve to be compatible with armv7a
> +MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv7ve', 'armv7ve:armv7a:', '' ,d)}"
>
>  require conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv6.inc
>  require conf/machine/include/arm/feature-arm-neon.inc
> --
> 2.7.0
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core