Re: New meta-cubox layer

[Carlos Rafael Giani <dv@pseudoterminal.org>]

On 2013-04-03 20:38, Koen Kooi wrote:
> So how is this different from https://github.com/naguirre/meta-cubox ?

I am in contact with the author of that layer. My work started as a fork 
of that, since the layer did not work for me, but since I anyway was 
changing pretty much all of it from the ground up, I decided to start my 
own. Now, covers more features of the CuBox, and supports both soft- and 
hardfp in all recipes.

>
> Just like https://github.com/naguirre/meta-cubox you're mixing DISTRO 
> policy in the machine files by setting the tuning to hardfloat. Don't 
> do that. If you want hardfloat, set that in your distro config, not in 
> your machine config.

Do I understand it correctly that I should drop "marvellpj4hf" from 
https://github.com/dv1/meta-cubox/blob/master/conf/machine/include/tune-marvell-pj4.inc 
, or at least not set it as DEFAULTTUNE, not even with the ?= operation, 
and just use "marvellpj4" instead ? Because it is the distros decision 
to add the "callconvention-hard" feature?

The reason I ask that is because when I was writing the tune, I stumbled 
upon 
https://github.com/openembedded/oe-core/blob/master/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7a.inc 
, which includes armv7a, armv7ahf . This confuses me. Why is it OK there 
to mix in the callconvention?

Finally, is there a way to give a distro a "hint" about what is 
preferred for a machine (soft/hardfp)? One that the distro is free to 
ignore or respect?