Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:00:43 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> Cc: Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com>, "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Creating armv7 MACHINE_ARCH Message-ID: <CANCZdfo5u-tbwQecRZmGz=V-9S_zvTVMVXWHjLVh3Kfa741V5A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <B19EDB95-2A23-4F8F-8414-3F4E0E65AC4B@dsl-only.net> References: <CANCZdfpUjPBRpxpmjtwK-wpiK=%2BwHscS4UmVeatrE7vrm260tw@mail.gmail.com> <20170612152808.6094931.74364.27128@gmail.com> <CANCZdfrxTo8vLsnjU_VerO%2B3%2BU=06cok7%2BuKba3FM8_nXFozhQ@mail.gmail.com> <B19EDB95-2A23-4F8F-8414-3F4E0E65AC4B@dsl-only.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> wrote: > > On 2017-Jun-12, at 8:39 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > . . . > > > > Plus, we aren't quite doing what Ian wanted. He wanted a full rename. The > > proposal on the able is to add an armv7 TARGET_ARCH in 12. Not to rename > or > > remove armv6. Sadly, that will still be there since the RPI foundation > > keeps finding new ways to repackage the rpi into new boards that are just > > too cheap to ignore. > > On 2017-Jun-12, at 6:59 AM, Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> wrote: > > > I like this. My understanding is adding armv7 would also fix many of the > currently broken ports that assume they are being built for armv7 as many > Linux distros target ARMv7+. > > > > It should also be noted the GENERIC kernel is likely to only ever target > ARMv7+ even without an armv7 TARGET_ARCH. > > > Hopefully the choices related to TARGET and TARGET_ARCH > for armv7 end up identifying the context to port builds > so that many would just automatically do the right thing. > Yes. That's a prereq for having a new TARGET_ARCH support: relevant kernels must identify themselves correctly so that ports build correctly. > As for GENERIC: > > powerpc has. . . > > TARGET=powerpc TARGET_ARCH=powerpc and GENERIC > TARGET=powerpc TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 and GENERIC64 > > So there is precedent for more than one GENERIC* > for a family, with which one being appropriate > being based on TARGET_ARCH. > > For powerpc TARGET=powerpc implicitly uses > TARGET_ARCH=powerpc when TARGET_ARCH is not > specified (if I remember right). Which should > be the default for armv6 vs. armv7 might go > the other direction (TARGET_ARCH=armv7 by > default). > > > Side note: > > A caution about talking about "rpi2" as > an example. . . > > Raspberry Pi 2 Model B V1.2 is Cortex-A53 based > (so arm64/aarch64). (A BCM2837, not a BCM2836.) > This dates about to something like 2014 based > on the pictures showing the (c) notice on the > boards. > > V1.1 and before were armv7 (BCM2836) based. > > Unless a kernel and world are made that can > also configure/handle a Cortex-A53 in a > armv7-like manor there will be two different > GENERIC builds in order to span the "rpi2" > family, based on just V1.2+ vs. V1.1 and > before. > > (A single, modern distribution of the official > Raspbian software for the rpi2 does support > all the V1.x boards if I understand right.) Yea, that's crazy on their part. I don't know if we support the 64-bit CPU in 32-bit mode at all. But that's an orthogonal issue to this discussion. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfo5u-tbwQecRZmGz=V-9S_zvTVMVXWHjLVh3Kfa741V5A>