From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ptmx.org ([178.63.28.110]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UNTFg-0004WQ-0k for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:21:44 +0200 Received: from [192.168.178.14] (chello080108009040.14.11.vie.surfer.at [80.108.9.40]) by ptmx.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81A141FF85 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:04:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <515C7D42.6070303@pseudoterminal.org> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:04:34 +0200 From: Carlos Rafael Giani User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <515C5DE6.6040702@pseudoterminal.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: New meta-cubox layer X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:21:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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?