From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:51:25 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] arch/arm: use EABIhf by default with VFP In-Reply-To: <20151026092536.6aa7996b@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:25:36 +0100") References: <87k2qn6gf0.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <1445786380-2741-1-git-send-email-benoit.thebaudeau.dev@gmail.com> <87bnbmixv1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20151026013217.60ad1af8@free-electrons.com> <87bnbmdqad.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20151026092536.6aa7996b@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <877fmadnci.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > Peter, > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:47:54 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >> > 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. >> >> But packages should use the BR2_ARM_FPU_VFPV2 (and 3/4) symbols to check >> if they should use the VFP, and not BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2 > But then they have to test BR2_ARM_FPU_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_FPU_VFPV3 || > BR2_ARM_FPU_VFPV3D16 || ... > If they just want to know if a VFP is available. If that is the case we could make a hidden BR2_ARM_FPU_VFP that gets selected by those, or simply check for !ARM_SOFT_FLOAT. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard