From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96D54C81001 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:23:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAAENBjv018056; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:23:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:23:10 -0800 Received: from [128.224.146.67] ([128.224.146.67]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:23:11 -0800 Message-ID: <4CDAAACD.1070206@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:23:09 -0500 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100217 Shredder/3.0.3pre ThunderBrowse/3.2.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala References: <414DA7D8-2E3E-4DEE-9C36-24EF976D7A99@kernel.crashing.org> <4CDAA03C.8090004@windriver.com> <4CDAA4F0.1060802@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2010 14:23:11.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[CDAAACF0:01CB80E2] Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: TARGET_FPU for mpc8315e-rdb listed as SPE?? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:23:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10-11-10 09:11 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >> On 10-11-10 08:38 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>> On 10-11-10 01:46 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> Why does the meta/conf/machine/mpc8315e-rdb.conf list TARGET_FPU as >>>> SPE. This isn't correct for an MPC8313 SoC. >>> >>> It isn't used at the moment, so we can safely >>> ignore this. >>> >>> It was a hold over from when I initially created >>> the BSP, and I've since changed it locally, but >>> haven't sent the updated BSP yet. >> >> To clarify on this point, the kernel configuration >> is NOT using SPE for this, and I was attempting to >> use the FPU setting to trigger some different gcc >> flags during development the base of that test was >> an e500 board, so the SPE setting leaked in, but is >> unused. >> >> At the moment, it is actually using soft-float, and >> I had planned to submit a change to clarify that. >> >> If there's another option, let me know and I'll >> rebase my patches and change it again. > > We should NOT be using soft-float for mpc8315e (it has HW floating point on this chip). Indeed. I fell back to a safe multilib. I'm willing to try again and see if the gcc bootstrap phases will build. The kernel was fine, and is fine, it was userspace that caused problems for me .. and that's definitely not an area where my expertise lies :) I needed something that worked, and had to excplicitly chose to ignore the FPU temporarily, but revisiting that now seems like a good idea. > > Any plans to get an e500 based system going before the rev1.0 release? We've got tonnes of experience and BSPs to draw from here. The selection of some of these BSPs was (largely) based on cost and availability. If we can get our hands on a suitable e500 replacement .. the switch is trivial. Cheers, Bruce > > - k