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 yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC56E006D9 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5DL9vjG011903 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.146.67] (128.224.146.67) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:09:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4FD9017D.6050805@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:09:17 -0400 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Darren Hart References: <21DFE0D0610B43B982449CB678019727@intel.com> <4FD8FC7A.6000209@linux.intel.com> <66686EEDFFCF448E9EA9D435AD58344B@intel.com> <4FD8FE53.1030805@windriver.com> <4FD8FF5D.5060205@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD8FF5D.5060205@linux.intel.com> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: More useful generic-x86 machine 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, 13 Jun 2012 21:09:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 >> >