On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 06:41:32PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
[snip]
> >>Hmm, you select the hal.o file accordingly? Won't mips1-le-elf work
> >>on both R1 and R2? Checking for R1/R2 doesn't seem ideal to me if it
> >>can be avoided.
> >>
> >>Thiemo, any comment?
> >
> >
> >At least for 32bit kernels this looks like a viable option, if the hal
> >layer is sufficiently simple (i.e. no dependency to kernel headers).
> >
> >Same for 64bit kernels and MIPS-III.
>
> So in short we could use mipsisa32-{be,le}-elf on all machines but the
> one that have CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_R1 or CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_R2 set to one.
> Am I right?
Erm, depends on what "mipsisa32" selects in that case.
The compatibility tree is:
/ -> MIPS-III -> MIPS-IV -> MIPS64 -> MIPS64R2 # 64bit
| ^ ^
| | |
MIPS-I -> MIPS-II ------------------------> MIPS32 -> MIPS32R2 # 32bit
so you need MIPS-I for 32bit Kernels and MIPS-III for 64bit kernels.
For the current compilers in Debian this can be selected via
-march=mips1 and -march=mips3 respectively.
Calling a file mipsisa32 when it selects mips1 sounds like a horrible
case of obfuscation. :-)
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
