From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.25]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C3EDE00A for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:38:12 +1100 (EST) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so1183965qwb.15 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:38:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4979EE74.6040306@freescale.com> References: <4979EE74.6040306@freescale.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:31:05 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Common kernel image for e300 and e500v2 From: Johns Daniel To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175caadaf5e247046129c044 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0015175caadaf5e247046129c044 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you for that piece of info, Scott! 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? I know for sure that we take a big hit on floating-point ops, but are there other things I am not considering? -- Johns On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > Johns Daniel wrote: > >> Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image >> for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an >> e500v2 core? >> > > No, it is not possible. They use different MMUs, and the kernel does not > support choosing between them at runtime. > > I was surprised to see that the e500v2-targeted toolchain did build >> the kernel for the e300 board just fine. Don't know whether this will >> always be true? >> > > "always" is a strong word, but it should generally work. > > -Scott > > --0015175caadaf5e247046129c044 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you for that piece of info, Scott!

May I expand the question o= ne bit, and ask whether the user-mode binaries compiled for the e300 will g= enerally work for the e500 -- or, vice versa? Is one choice safer than the = other?

I know for sure that we take a big hit on floating-point ops, but are t= here other things I am not considering?

-- Johns

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Scott Wood <scott= wood@freescale.com> wrote:
Johns Daniel= wrote:
Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image
for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an
e500v2 core?

No, it is not possible.  They use different MMUs, and the kernel does = not support choosing between them at runtime.


I was surprised to see that the e500v2-targeted toolchain did build
the kernel for the e300 board just fine. Don't know whether this will always be true?

"always" is a strong word, but it should generally work.

-Scott


--0015175caadaf5e247046129c044--