On 17/04/17 14:54, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2017-04-17 13:26, Ram Chandra Jangir wrote:
Hi Felix,
What's the reason for making it a separate subtarget?
We would like to add ipq40xx as subtarget for following reasons.
1. ipq40xx is different SoC than existing ipq806x
2. Would like to have SoC specific images, so that kernel configs can be
tweaked per SoC
3. SoC specific images will be smaller in size & faster boot-time
While some drivers are indeed SoC specific, I think ipq40xx and ipq806x
do have a lot of overlap. I don't think that images will be much smaller
with SoC specific subtargets, at least not enough to make any
*practical* difference.
4. Newer SoC may have exclusive FWs which needs compile time differentiation.
Firmware should be packaged anyway, and can thus be handled via device
profiles.
5. There is new SoC(ipq807x) under development, which is based on
ARMv8. Hence we will need subtarget approach to accommodate new SoC.
I agree that there should be a separate subtarget for ipq807x, but I
don't think it makes sense for ipq40xx.
Please keep in mind that each extra build target has a visible cost in
buildbot and download server resources, so I would really like to avoid
adding more except where there are strong reasons to do so.
I agree on this one. there is no technical need to split ipq4xxx into a
sub target
John
- Felix
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
