On 4/4/12 1:03 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
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...
Normally I'd say yes, but the SPE settings are a bit unique for the ppce500[v2]
series of CPUs. Duplicating it shouldn't cause any unique problems to occur.
(If future CPUs were to include the e500 or e500v2 SPE unit, we could consider
moving the code.. or more likely renaming the spe element is to "spe-single" and
"spe-double"...)
But at this point I believe they are dead ends....
--Mark
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
