On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > Control: tag -1 - moreinfo > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 11:14 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: >> > >> > Control: tag -1 moreinfo >> > >> > On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 22:52 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: >> > > >> > > Package: src:linux >> > > Version: 4.5 - 4.6 >> > > >> > > Hi, this patch add mipsn32 and mipsn32el support and also add >> > > 6 MIPS r6 architectures. >> > > >> > > mipsn32 and mipsn32el have same flavors with mips64 and mips64el. >> > Since we have multiarch it is not necessary to duplicate kernel >> > packages with identical configurations in multiple Debian >> > architectures. All the N32 architectures should be used in multiarch >> > configurations together with the corresponding 64-bit architectures. >> > (The same should be true for O32 architectures, but that won't happen >> > until the corresponding 64-bit architectures are in the main archive.) >> I won't push N32 architecture to the main Debian archive. >> I just wish the code in the upstream, so I will not have to maintain another >> git repo, and merge patches again and again. >> >> In fact, I may build a standalone N32 private archive in future. > > I will still insist that N32 architectures do not have their own > kernels, only userland packages (linux-libc-dev, linux-kbuild, linux- > perf, etc.)
Yes, so mipsn32/mipsn32el architectures has the same flavors with mips64/mips64el. N32 here is about 2 new architectures named mipsn32/mipsn32el. To make these architectures installable, they must have their own kernel packages, like linux-image-4.6.0-1-loongson-3_$(THE_VERSION).mipsn32el.deb. This package has the same content with: linux-image-4.6.0-1-loongson-3_$(THE_VERSION).mips64el.deb. > >> > [...] >> > > >> > > --- a/debian/config/defines >> > > +++ b/debian/config/defines >> > > @@ -13,8 +13,16 @@ arches: >> > > m68k >> > > mips >> > > mipsel >> > > + mipsn32 >> > > + mipsn32el >> > > mips64 >> > > mips64el >> > > + mipsr6 >> > > + mipsr6el >> > > + mipsn32r6 >> > > + mipsn32r6el >> > > + mips64r6 >> > > + mips64r6el >> > [...] >> > >> > This is ridiculous. 12 different Debian architectures for MIPS?! If >> > you want to make ARM look like a better choice, this sort of >> > fragmentation of binary compatibility is a good way to do it. >> > >> > Why are there new Debian architectures specifically for R6, given that >> > Debian architectures correspond to ABIs and not specific CPU >> > requirements (e.g.. i386's CPU requirements have graudally moved up >> > from 386 to 686-class)? >> Please see the talk on >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807340 >> >> MIPS R6 is a new release of MIPS32 and MIPS64. >> R6 is not fully compatible with R5-, >> as it adds and *removes* some instructions, and add emulation >> of the removed instructions in kernel, >> so old binaries can still run on new R6 CPUs. > > That's quite amazing. But it's even worse that that - the architecture > reference you linked to says some of the removed instructions' > encodings have been reassigned to new instructions. This seems to make > emulation impossible. > >> While for the new CPUs, we still wish they can have their own architectures. > > I suppose they will have to. > > Ben. > >> In future, we may add them to the official Debian archive, >> while now, it is just a prepare. > > > -- > Ben Hutchings > You can't have everything. Where would you put it? -- YunQiang Su
