[oe] introducing a new architecture/machine; policy ? (and a question)

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/6/23 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> On (23/06/10 13:16), Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> 2010/6/23 Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > On 23-06-10 12:07, Philip Balister wrote:
>> >> On 06/23/2010 12:03 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:54:21 +0200
>> >>> Frans Meulenbroeks<fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2010/6/23 Graeme Gregory<dp at xora.org.uk>:
>> >>>>>>>> Also I don't feel empowered to make changes in distribution
>> >>>>>>>> specific files.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Why not, chances are Angstrom maintainers would be quite happy for
>> >>>>> you to patch angstrom*.conf if you ask us.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Graeme
>> >>>>
>> >>>> distribution != angstrom
>> >>>> There are more distributions out there.
>> >>
>> >> Right now, toolchain selection is done in distro files not machine
>> >> files. I agree this is not the clearest approach, however adding the
>> >> toolchain selection to the machine files may have unexpected side effects.
>> >
>> > Think of multimachine builds. What happens when someone else adds
>> > *another* nios2 based machine with different toolchain versions, how do
>> > I know which toolchain avahi_1.0_nios2.ipk was compiled with
>>
>> If toolchain is interesting to know in ipk's it should be part of the name.
>> And note that I am really in favour of an architecture specific
>> solution, not a machine one.
>> That is why I used an include file to contain the pinnings.
>>
>> And actually the situation with nios2 is much much worse.
>> As it is a soft-core people can come up with all kind of variants.
>> (e.g. with/without fp).
>
> not new. Other arches have similar variants already in OE

I know, but at least in those architectures if you have a board the
situation is static.
In fpga's capable of having a nios2 machine, it is still possible to
load different configurations.
As such it is different from everything we have (as far as I know we
have no microblaze boards yet).
>
>
>> Actually nios2 adds pragma's to gcc to select
>> which instructions are there and which not.
>
> Well I would have preferred commandline options that way you could
> have many variants and we could have overrides like we have arm sub-arches

You would indeed get many variants and many options.
Anyway, the code I started with had the pragma's.There were other
higher priority things to dig into (like getting it to compile on 64
bit hw).

Frans
>
>
>> Not sure whether the latter is a good idea as it is one of the things
>> that fail moving to a newer gcc.
>>
>> The good news is that most of the variants used have different
>> peripherals, but seem to stick to just a few cpu cores.
>> (nios2 is used as a generic name for the SoC as well as the core,
>> doesn't help to separate things either).
>>
>> Frans
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>