From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 23 21:07:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05C01065675 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:07:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from monday.kientzle.com (99-115-135-74.uvs.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.115.135.74]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE91A8FC08 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:07:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from root@localhost) by monday.kientzle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) id q5NL7Vwx021689; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:07:31 GMT (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.2.143] (CiscoE3000 [192.168.1.65]) by kientzle.com with SMTP id e9hay86zr7tjucddbd76rcwzwi; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:07:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tim Kientzle In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:07:28 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0078302D-CC33-4B89-87BE-50C77D4855BE@freebsd.org> References: <3F1A5B5F-0787-41CE-8C77-8B1F9A601172@freebsd.org> <31C8D224-72D4-4BE8-8EC3-29B078C7DAC3@bsdimp.com> To: Warner Losh X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: armv6 tree vs. buildkernel X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:07:33 -0000 On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >>>=20 >>>> P.S. How is CPUTYPE/TARGET_CPUTYPE supposed to be inferred for = regular "buildworld"? >>>> The only option I can find is to set it explicitly in /etc/src.conf >>>=20 >>> It can't possibly work very well. We need to get TARGET_ARCH=3Darmv6 = working instead of continuing these kludges. >>=20 >>=20 >> Help get me oriented and I'll start grinding through this. >>=20 >> What values of TARGET_ARCH should be supported? >=20 > arm, armeb, armv6 (and maybe armv6eb if they make those). So do you consider the -DARM_ARCH_6 and -D_ARM_ARCH_6 defines to be among these "kluges"? How should the C source identify the architecture and customize itself? I'm trying to get a clearer picture of how this *should* work before I start roto-tilling a lot of code. >> Right now, there are ARCH values of arm and armeb. >> Should there be armv6eb? armv7? >=20 > There should be no armv7, since armv6 means v6 and later. At some = point there will be an arm64, I suppose too. So if someone wants an armv7 tree, they should have TARGET=3Darm TARGET_ARCH=3Darmv6 TARGET_CPUTYPE=3Darmv7 >> I'm also unclear on the distinction between make's MACHINE_ARCH >> and uname -p; are these supposed to be the same? If so, shouldn't >> make be using a sysctl instead of a hard-coded value? >=20 > I thought it already did. That might not be a bad idea. MACHINE_ARCH = and uname -p should be identical. If they aren't, that's a bug. Ah. That helps. (This certainly isn't true in the current make source and I can't find where this assumption is documented.) > I posted patches here before to do all (most?) of MACHINE_ARCH=3Darmv6. = Have you tried them on the armv6 branch? I've not had a chance to port = them over yet. I've seen some oblique references to those patches but haven't tracked them down to study yet. Is this r234548 in users/imp? Tim