On 08/23/2011 08:34 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On 08/23/2011 05:38 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: >>> >>> Op 20 aug. 2011, om 00:23 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: >>> >>>> Fixes [YOCTO #1203] >>>> >>>> Using the hard floating point abi is incompatible with some binary >>>> libaries and 3D support for the Beagleboard. As we do not provide >>>> these in poky and meta-yocto, we can take advantage of the hard >>>> floating point abi. >>> >>> What advantage are you talking about? So far everyone has been unable >>> to provide real-world numbers[1] that show hardfp making a difference >>> compared to a properly configured softfp. The numbers debian and >>> meego are showing are comparing it against completely vfpless builds, >> >> >> That's good reasoning to stick with softfp+neon. Unfortunately I can't >> find the mail threads that first got me looking into adding hardfp >> support. As I said, I'm not sold on the idea, but it was requested so I >> looked into how to address it. >> >> If nobody comes forward saying they would really like to have this, I'm >> going to modify the patch series to disable hardfp by default, but leave >> the infrastructure in place so people can enable if they like. > > Well, are there some softfp related config bits we need on the yocto > side that meta-ti has, in order to bring that performance back in > line?
Are you referring to a specific performance measure? Jason, Koen, are there any such config bits? We are currently using the cortexa8-neon tune configuration from oe-core. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
