Re: New meta-cubox layer

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 03-04-13 21:04, Carlos Rafael Giani schreef:
> 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?

Exactly!

> 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?

It isn't, that file just lists all the permutiations available.

> 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?

There isn't, apart from a note in the README of your BSP.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFRXUucMkyGM64RGpERAlQFAKCpia9xhA+ldV8AdpH2F3GWAkptQwCgsCcd
2Tz5vaOMU9oX93XPNmAZE/E=
=fR8B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----