From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 07:08:16 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] arch/Config.in: Allow ARM to select BR2_BINFMT_FLAT In-Reply-To: <20130906082537.08818fba@skate> References: <1378262598.32360.5.camel@phoenix> <1378262667.32360.6.camel@phoenix> <20130905234841.3bbfe0d4@skate> <20130906082537.08818fba@skate> Message-ID: <5229A990.7080906@zacarias.com.ar> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 09/06/2013 03:25 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 03:08:10 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > >> 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). On a side note, remember that HAS_MMU doesn't mean it's using it - from what i've read you can use MMU-bearing processors to test uclinux MMU-less scenarios (dunno if it can be done with every SOC out there, probably depends on the linux support for each one, at least a couple of Atmel ones were used this way for testing and/or masochism). Regards.