On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote:
> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-ppce500.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-ppce500.inc
> @@ -4,13 +4,17 @@ require conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>
> TUNEVALID[ppce500] = "Enable ppce500 specific processor optimizations"
> TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "ppce500",
> "-mcpu=8540", "", d)}"
> -TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-ppce500 = "ppce500"
>
> TUNEVALID[spe] = "Enable SPE ABI extensions"
> -TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "spe", "-mabi=spe
> -mspe -mfloat-gprs=double", "", d)}"
> +TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", [ "ppce500", "spe" ],
> "-mabi=spe -mspe -mfloat-gprs=single", "", d)}"
> +TARGET_FPU .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", [ "ppce500" , "spe" ],
> "ppc-efs", "", d)}"
Should these TARGET_FPU's be in a common file? Maybe some of these
other bits could be moved to a common file too? Setting this
TARGET_FPU above and TUNE_FEATURES in the same file seems redundant?
Or maybe this is for the multilib scenario and I'm missing
something...
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
