Re: More useful generic-x86 machine

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 12-06-13 05:00 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 06/13/2012 01:55 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-06-13 04:52 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 21:47, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> Seems reasonable to me. We should probably have 32b and 64b of this
>>>> machine as well.
>>>
>>> And x32… :)
>>
>>    From the kernel point of view, these are just configuration extensions
>> to a base, which is where this discussion started (the kernel, I'm
>> excluding userspace on purpose). So this should be one machine with
>> these as overlays, not three different machines.
>
> I would have thought the three different architectures would have called
> for three different machines. How would this work from the KMACHINE
> meta-data perspective?

I've had dual endian machines for ages for MIPS. This is no
different. You use a common machine, and then just trigger fragments
that change the few options that are different like endianess, etc.
So there's a single KMACHINE definition with additions.

Granted, this was more important when there was a strict 1:1 branch ->
machine mapping. But it still makes sense to keep things as small
as possible.  We can do the same thing with three KMACHINE definitions
that include a common base, and that's nominally three machines, but
the slippery slope is that they start to diverge .. since they are
described by three different top level options.

I'm splitting a hair, I just wanted to point out that I wouldn't
call word size, endianess or other ABI differences big differences
in a machine definition.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> --
> Darren
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yocto mailing list
>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>
>