From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Mon Jun 12 15:22:15 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EE8BFE98A for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:22:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5384C7306A for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:22:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y77so56706370ioe.3 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=l5F8dNCR7lzrBqDKdW4Iv3rPkXNRPVeHChoxjeJOiwI=; b=bCcLYLVIZigSKxmSfy82Io8J3b/4GcQjof2CKpjNoOWiEHMRuvEM+T1wdYVHNiF5tU 6wk4xDXs45tSwyjwrN9i7Vx6VnbtXmwS8YlZJeDwDvni9EYsgmmMJMAd8YdvkPcn2oYW LDmk8PnGZpOc9u/jPeWX6MgAYcm3roSxSWsZiaxbOOGxB5Pjt3v562NzVP63uMK0QeV9 dwTgoxRZGf5gWSG2lionvgV3QM+3Dwp/43YQcgZT5vPh2NvaECP0CpIZEqP7WryTrqNr lG4hbqfTai/6Ubv6rGsnBW0a8+2nXep4TeNaUz/lHz0om8343/9YijXsxvEW0fGtet12 1Fbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=l5F8dNCR7lzrBqDKdW4Iv3rPkXNRPVeHChoxjeJOiwI=; b=aPGuSkdixjTjcIRch7d0KCU5wBD5trCUszjLVUA/MKi5h85TWCd23P5t19F72IN9zs iGkX6TWiiDHqKj7tyQsXVGfyA52wxgChHPHnrkxaWzAc5C0JWwK+LVTPun0KznVjsmdA her2fpodS9r3H9+GDaBlDtWKPVmFe9QmzR4/04y4uP1Wh6oIEPd3WbpYy2/Hvh+aowYi Un56es+5LeXAwWP8yDGb/wIBXl0UzGte7izv/37S7xv6XfEtWTNlNUEAHYxo4hQdoFYu fu2Up1RcqSoYdeugUDUUFbrYotLHurKMgwjJtvBLBpEIdEMYCoVi2vjSuvbuI174Ahd6 yzSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAjI1xFLbGg9Id5GJpYHYu+/BazEfAjadP+B4eqooaQMtDeRo8Q bfGt6u5atQCBaA/KSbYXoQE3O6zAJOIb X-Received: by 10.107.197.68 with SMTP id v65mr19052720iof.218.1497280934523; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:22:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.192.69 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:29a3:1710:671c:c6a7] In-Reply-To: References: From: Warner Losh Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:22:13 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: e5CDLTT085aHtFWAksdXUdTNVQg Message-ID: Subject: Re: Creating armv7 MACHINE_ARCH To: Andrew Turner Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:22:15 -0000 On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Andrew Turner wrote: > > > On 8 Jun 2017, at 21:27, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > While the kernel doesn't really need an armv7 support, there will be a > > better match to other systems if we create a armv7 MACHINE_ARCH. This > will > > be in addition to the armv6 MACHINE_ARCH we have today. This will allow > us > > to create a package set optimized for armv7 as well as armv6. While it is > > true the RPI 1 is the only system that needs armv6 binaries, it's quite > > popular and the Raspberry Pi folks keep creating new variants with the > same > > chip. It would also let us get the package stuff spun up and working > before > > we mess with armv6. > > > > This would also separate the fate of armv6 and armv7 support at a later > > time, but the weak consensus I've heard appears to be that the time isn't > > yet right to discuss retiring armv6 support... > > > > Warner > > 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. > We already compile all the non-RPI kernels de-facto how we'd do an armv7 TARGET_ARCH. Is there a rough consensus that we want to do this? Are there any objections? Should I ask RE? Do I need to do an FCP to write down the decision with core blessing our understanding of the consensus? Warner