Thank you for that piece of info, Scott!<br><br>May I expand the question one bit, and ask whether the user-mode binaries compiled for the e300 will generally work for the e500 -- or, vice versa? Is one choice safer than the other?<br>

<br>I know for sure that we take a big hit on floating-point ops, but are there other things I am not considering?<br><br>-- Johns<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Scott Wood <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:scottwood@freescale.com" target="_blank">scottwood@freescale.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Johns Daniel wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image<br>
for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an<br>
e500v2 core?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
No, it is not possible. &nbsp;They use different MMUs, and the kernel does not support choosing between them at runtime.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I was surprised to see that the e500v2-targeted toolchain did build<br>
the kernel for the e300 board just fine. Don&#39;t know whether this will<br>
always be true?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
&quot;always&quot; is a strong word, but it should generally work.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-Scott<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>