Am 02.08.2012 17:01, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 2 August 2012 15:53, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> In practice, it seemed that usage of these devices is rather fragmented >> (not all boards use all PLxxx devices) so that per-device config names >> as in master allow for fine-grained control of which devices get built >> if only armeb-softmmu were to be built; >> on the other hand if that seems too complicated the alternative question >> to ask would be, are all PLxxx devices theoretically capable of being >> used for armeb as well? > > They should in theory be OK on a big-endian system, but then in theory > just about any device should be OK on a big endian system: device/system > endianness and CPU endianness are orthogonal.
I was specifically thinking of whether the specified device endianness is correct, i.e. whether device code assumes Little Endian but might be marked DEVICE_NATIVE_ENDIAN (thus becoming Big Endian on armeb) or is marked DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN but should be DEVICE_NATIVE_ENDIAN to adapt to armeb (e.g., double-swapping issues with IBM8514 card a while ago). Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
