Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:58:58 -0600 From: Warner Losh <wlosh@bsdimp.com> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: armv6 tree vs. buildkernel Message-ID: <D0A60CD4-E0CF-4D7B-9E87-22D9A12048D1@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <C75EE66B-30CE-48C7-8CC2-5DEC9F9D7F24@freebsd.org> References: <3F1A5B5F-0787-41CE-8C77-8B1F9A601172@freebsd.org> <31C8D224-72D4-4BE8-8EC3-29B078C7DAC3@bsdimp.com> <C75EE66B-30CE-48C7-8CC2-5DEC9F9D7F24@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? arm, armeb, armv6 (and maybe armv6eb if they make those). > Right now, there are ARCH values of arm and armeb. > Should there be armv6eb? armv7? There should be no armv7, since armv6 means v6 and later. At some point = there will be an arm64, I suppose too. > 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? 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. 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. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D0A60CD4-E0CF-4D7B-9E87-22D9A12048D1>