Re: Debian ARM architectures and subarchitectures
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:26:41PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Uwe has pointed my to this patch:
> > < http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/113099 >
>
> See the rest of the thread too :-)
>
> Would the kernel team be actually ok with building both a -mx51 *and* a
> -mx53 in the future? I suspect it would be too heavy. In theory
> CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT should work; it might be broken, but it's
> clearly the way forward.
>
> Anticipating support for mx53, I would recommend you go for -mx5; I'd
> hope there is sufficient benefits in having a single kernel image that
> even if this might be broken right now, it would be better to fix it
> rather than go for two kernels just because of this single issue.
Yeah, I'd start with i.MX51 and add i.MX5[03] only when this is
supported in the same image. And I'm already working on that.
So using "mx5" seems ok, only concern is that is might suggest too much
at the beginning.
Currently there is only one i.MX50 machine in mainline (which depends on
BROKEN so hardly counts) and the three i.MX53 platforms by Freescale. I
think it's OK to skip these for now.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Reply to: