Oops, I wanted to include Pali and Segher when I sent the series, I prepared a script including them but used the wrong script at the end.
Le 11/07/2022 à 17:05, Arnd Bergmann a écrit : > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Christophe Leroy > <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> wrote: >> @@ -183,6 +183,18 @@ config 405_CPU >> bool "40x family" >> depends on 40x >> >> +config 440_CPU >> + bool "440 (44x family)" >> + depends on 44x >> + >> +config 464_CPU >> + bool "464 (44x family)" >> + depends on 44x >> + >> +config 476_CPU >> + bool "476 (47x family)" >> + depends on PPC_47x > > Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a > 476? No idea, maybe not. > Maybe add another !PPC_47x dependency for the first two. Ideally we would also > enforce that 440/464 based boards cannot be selected together with 476, though > I guess that is a separate issue. Yes can do that. By the way, 440/464 boards get excluded from kernel/cputable.c when 47x is selected > > Is there a practical difference between 440 and 464 when building kernels? > gcc seems to treat them the same way, so maybe one option for both is enough > here. > I don't know. Christophe
