From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 08:25:37 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] arch/Config.in: Allow ARM to select BR2_BINFMT_FLAT In-Reply-To: References: <1378262598.32360.5.camel@phoenix> <1378262667.32360.6.camel@phoenix> <20130905234841.3bbfe0d4@skate> Message-ID: <20130906082537.08818fba@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 03:08:10 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > > or something like this. This way, users of MMU-capable ARM variants > > wouldn't be confused by the availability of FLAT and ELF as binary > > formats. Of course, BR2_BINFMT_ELF should gain some !BR2_arm7tmdi > > && !BR2_arm_cortex_m3 && !BR2_arm_cortex_m4 dependencies, or maybe even > > a !BR2_USE_MMU dependency. I think there's quite some room for > > improvement around the definition of which CPU has an MMU or not, and > > which architectures support which binary formats. > > Don't we/shouldn't we have something like ARCH_HAS_MMU and/or > ARCH_SUPPORTS_FLAT_BINARY? Yes, we should probably have something like this (and ditto for other binary formats: ELF, FDPIC and so on). Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com