From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 13E3DE00BE1; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high * trust * [192.94.94.41 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from bear.ext.ti.com (bear.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.41]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1407E00B83 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by bear.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id s5B2udL0014125; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:56:39 -0500 Received: from DLEE70.ent.ti.com (dlee70.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.113]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s5B2udKE026249; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:56:39 -0500 Received: from dflp32.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.15) by DLEE70.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:56:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp32.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s5B2uddD021171; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:56:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:56:39 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: Ash Charles Message-ID: <20140611025637.GK18034@edge> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: DSP packages for OMAP3 X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 02:56:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:04:43PM -0700, Ash Charles wrote: > Hi, > > I was stepping through the meta-ti layer to assess support for the DSP > on OMAP3[57]. > > Two questions: > 1. It looks like there are more recent versions of the code > generation tools [1] (either 7.6.0 or 7.4.8) than 7.2.7. Is there any > reason not to use these newer version? (Apologies if this is a dumb > question---I just don't know enough about the DSP ecosystem) > > 2. It seems like ti-dsplink and ti-linuxutils (among others I suspect) > have hardcoded compiler paths and flags that supersede those provided > by bitbake. This is causing me headaches when trying to build with a > hardfp compiler (as recent SGX binaries are provided in hardfp mode). > Is there a technical limitation to compiling DSP support code with a > hard float compiler? I don't mind taking a stab at making the > makefiles a little more flexible but if the code itself relies on > non-hardfp, I'll need to rethink. Unfortunately, DSP support in meta-ti is not maintained currently, as explained in the corresponding README file. -- Denys