Re: [PATCH] arch-arm64.inc: Do not append aarch64 in MACHINEOVERRIDES

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

On 3/2/20 1:34 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:29:37AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/2/20 9:11 AM, Junling Zheng wrote:
>>> Currently, for arch-arm64, poky will append the MACHINEOVERRIDES with
>>> "aarch64:", which has the higher priority than TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH.
>>> So, for aarch64 big endian, the variable '<foo>_aarch64' will override
>>> not only '<foo>', but also '<foo>_aarch64-be', thus we will get an
>>> incorrect variable.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Junling Zheng <zhengjunling@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>    meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc | 2 --
>>>    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc
>>> index 53f4566815..32294bd218 100644
>>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc
>>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc
>>> @@ -4,8 +4,6 @@ require conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7ve.inc
>>>    TUNEVALID[aarch64] = "Enable instructions for aarch64"
>>> -MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'aarch64', 'aarch64:', '' ,d)}"
>>> -
>>
>> if its removed here, where is it being added for other machines, question
>> is, should we treat aarch64 as LE equivalent of aarch64_be
>> or should be treated as common aarch64 and a new define like aarch64_le
>> defined.
>> ...
> 
> As far as I am aware all other distributions and config.guess are
> treating aarch64/arm64 as little endian and 64bit, unless suffixed.

this is effective only in defining overrides and like we have for mips 
there is a common override like mipsarch, that apply to all mips. and 
mips in itself does mean MIPS BE, so my question was if there is a value 
in having a common overrrided across all aarch64 variants we have 
irrepective of endianness or wordlength, its fine if we want to treat 
aarch64 as LE