Re: ppc e500v2 support?

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 11/4/10 1:02 PM, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Mark Hatle<mark.hatle@windriver.com>  wrote:
>> On 11/4/10 8:53 AM, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
>> Just an FYI.. the compiler flags for e500v1:
>>
>> -mcpu=8540 -mfloat-gprs=single -mspe=yes -mabi=spe
>>
>> and for e500v2:
>>
>> -mcpu=8548 -mfloat-gprs=double -mspe=yes -mabi=spe
>>
>> Neither of those would be compatible with the existing "ppc" packaging arch.
>>   We will need to generate at least one new packaging arch type, likely 2
>> (one for each).  Maybe called ppc_spe or something similar?
>>
> In OpenEmbedded we use the core variant as the packaging name:
>
> TARGET_CC_ARCH = "-mcpu=8548 -mspe=yes -mabi=spe -mhard-float
> -mfloat-gprs=double"
> BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "ppce500v2"
> FEED_ARCH = "ppce500v2"
> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppce500v2"
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Regards,

I think this is an area we need to coordinate.. I'm not against calling is 
ppce500v2 for right now.  However, I think this is a place we need to coordinate 
efforts.  I'm going to attempt to pull together a list of Linux ABIs & potential 
optimizations in the Yocto wiki.

The reason I bring this up is that over the years at Wind River, and my previous 
experience at MontaVista... and watching Emdebian and other projects.. 
_everyone_ names their package architectures differently.. because people only 
have a small view on the problem.  We finally have enough history to have a 
chance at indicating what the actual ABIs are, and how the compatibility matrix 
may fill out.  (also giving us a change to finally give these architectures 
reasonable naming schemes!)

--Mark