[Buildroot] Target support for Atmel ARM/AVR32

[Bernhard Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>Bernhard Fischer wrote:

>>If the TODO that is mentioned in r17516 would be fixed, would that
>>help that problem in any way? I, personally, don't use the concept of
>>a board in the context of buildroot. Put that aside, what about this
>>layout:
>>-) toolchain_<arch>_<subarch>_<cpu>
>>-) same for build_
>>-) board_<device> as default COPY_TO
>>
>>where
>>$device is target/device/*
>>$arch would be generic arch e.g. i386, arm
>>$subarch is the real -march=
>>$cpu is the real -mtune=
>>
>>Opinions?
>
>That is a different problem.
>I can either build an ARM based buildroot or an AVR32 based buildroot.
>They will build in: build_arm and build_avr32, same for toolchain.
>
>My problem is that I want to build for
>AT91RM9200DK    -ARM920T
>AT91RM9200DF     -ARM920T
>AT91RM9200EK     -ARM920T
>AT91SAM9260EK  -ARM926EJS
>AT91SAM9261EK  -ARM926EJS
>AT91SAM9263EK  -ARM926EJS
>AT91SAM9XEEK   -ARM926EJS
>using a common toolchain
>(The toolchain is generic arm, even though I use different CPU cores)
>and maybe a common root file system (today it is).
>
>This means that
>* 7 different Linux versions,
>* 7 different U-boot
>* 7 different bootstraps.
>Possibly, the root file system should be populated differently.
>
>When I have built a board, I want to have all binaries stored
>in one place which can be easily compressed into a tarball.
>
>Your suggestion is more for building different toolchains for different 
>boards
>but this is not the case.

My suggestion is to build two toolchains (assuming that ARM920T !=
ARM926EJS, if it is the same, then it's only one toolchain) and use that
to populate the board_{AT91*} dirs
>
>It is a big bonus, If I do not have to recompile the root file system
>packages, just because I build support for a new board.

What i wrote above did not suggest this.