Re: [RFC 2/5] tune-xscale, tune-arm926ejs: add OPTDEFAULTTUNE variable and use more generic DEFAULTTUNE as default

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1351 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:02:50PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 13:58 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> > I've been an advocate for a while that the processor optimization (CCARGS) does 
> > make it into the PKGARCH.  ARMPKGSFX_CPU seems like a reasonable approach to do 
> > this.  It allows each tune to set something to tell people what that binary is 
> > really built for, and for the 'base' tunes (i.e. armv5) it can be left off.
> 
> I think we've discussed this before but, just to reiterate, this sort of
> thing is a matter of DISTRO policy.  It is perfectly legitimate to want
> to build binaries with, say, -march=armv5te -mtune=arm926ej-s and have
> them end up with PACKAGE_ARCH="armv5te" or even just "arm".
> 
> It seems to me that we are in danger of adding a lot of complicated and
> hard-to-understand machinery to oe-core in an attempt to solve a problem
> that ought to be getting solved by the DISTRO, and that by doing so we
> might be making life harder rather than easier for DISTROs which happen
> to want a slightly different labelling model to the default.

That's already there with DEFAULTUNE/AVAILTUNES machinery, isn't it?

Having that with better default values doesn't make things worse for
such DISTROs.

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]