On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:26:41PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011, Hector Oron wrote: > > Uwe has pointed my to this patch: > > < http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/113099 > > > See the rest of the thread too :-) > > Would the kernel team be actually ok with building both a -mx51 *and* a > -mx53 in the future? I suspect it would be too heavy. In theory > CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT should work; it might be broken, but it's > clearly the way forward. > > Anticipating support for mx53, I would recommend you go for -mx5; I'd > hope there is sufficient benefits in having a single kernel image that > even if this might be broken right now, it would be better to fix it > rather than go for two kernels just because of this single issue.
OK > > It suggests to use two different subarchitectures for mx51 and mx503. > > 503? *-mx50 & *-mx53 Cheers, -- Héctor Orón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110412174539.GB5162@enorme.TCLDOMAIN.OFFICE
