From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:32:17 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] arch/arm: use EABIhf by default with VFP In-Reply-To: <87bnbmixv1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <87k2qn6gf0.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <1445786380-2741-1-git-send-email-benoit.thebaudeau.dev@gmail.com> <87bnbmixv1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20151026013217.60ad1af8@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 Peter Korsgaard, On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:53:06 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/Config.in.arm b/arch/Config.in.arm > > index 4d10f4c..f0110b1 100644 > > --- a/arch/Config.in.arm > > +++ b/arch/Config.in.arm > > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ endchoice > > choice > > prompt "Target ABI" > > depends on BR2_arm || BR2_armeb > > + default BR2_ARM_EABIHF if BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2 > > I think we should only do it when we are certain it will run, > E.G. arm926 (our default variant) selects MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2, but it is > afaik quite rare to see arm9s with a vfp. > > Committed with that changed, thanks. default BR2_ARM_EABIHF if BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2 was indeed wrong, since having BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 does not indicate that the SoC has VFP. However, unlike BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_NEON which gets selected even on ARM cores for which NEON is optional, but for which the user has explicitly requested NEON support to be enabled (through BR2_ARM_ENABLE_NEON), it is not the case for the VFP option. I think we should do that. Otherwise, BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2 will not be true, even if the VFPv2 unit is actually available and used. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com