Hi, On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:41:58PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > ARMv5 multiplatform would be nice, but we're constrained by the size of > > flash partitions on the small machines that are supported so I don't > > think this would work. > > I had another think about this and compared kirkwood and orion5x. It > seems that they are similar enough that we can combine them without > breaking the size limit (~2 MB compressed), though the result is very > close. Combining with versatile is probably not possible.
2MB is... tiny :( I guess it's an arbitrary limit from the bootloaders? In that case it could be circumvented by chainloading another bootloader? Probably not worth the trouble (since it's old HW), though. > After reducing the number of flavours in this way, we could add a v6 > kernel for armel too, but who would use it? RPi 1 users expect armhf > (rebuilt for v6) not armel. As I wrote, I do not care much for the extra performance win of armhf (v6) vs armel on the RPi1 (the RPi1s I have lying around have Debian armel images with kernel from RPi Foundation). In my environment (often hanging around in a hackspace) the main usecase of the RPi is attaching hardware, like sensors, to wired network. This is not really a CPU intensive task. OTOH I don't know how many people use the RPis that way and since there is the RPi2 now, I can just use them and get rid of my old RPi1s. > > > -armv5 kirkwood + orion5x + versatile > > > -armv6 bcm2036 ^^^ I meant s/bcm2036/bcm2835 here. > > > > > > [0] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1601.2/03005.html > > > > I don't think we're going to add any more hardware support to the armel > > port at this stage. I can live with that. -- Sebastian
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
