From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:20:20 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] arch/powerpc: add fsl e5500 and e6500 support In-Reply-To: <546B5779.9010708@zacarias.com.ar> References: <1416266092-6465-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <1416266092-6465-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <546B5779.9010708@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <20141118162020.02921a54@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Gustavo Zacarias, On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:28:09 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > > I'll try to give this a test when I get a chance, we currently have a > > e5500 target that we're building binaries for but with a e500mc > > toolchain (using arch compatibility mode on the processor). Will the > > buildroot toolchain do multilib so that it's possible to build uboot > > 32/36bit and a kernel 64bit? So far that's why we stuck with the > > e500mc (just 32/36bit) keeping us using a single toolchain. > > We don't do proper multilib yet, so unfortunately you'll have to go with > separate BR projects for say kernel/bootloader (64 bit) and userland (32 > bit). That's kind of annoying, and we have a similar problem on x86-64 when we need to build a 32 bits bootloader (though this might become less of an issue with UEFI being capable of using 64 bits bootloaders). Should we do something about this, and support multilib? Note that SH4 is also broken since quite a while in the internal toolchain backend because it needs multilib support. The issue is how do we decide which multilib variants to build? Do we simply "force" a certain set of multilib variants for a given architecture? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com