[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian ARM architectures and subarchitectures

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Patard <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org> wrote:
>> Hector Oron <hector.oron@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Hello,
>> Hi,
>>>   I am not sure how current Debian subarchitectures map to. Is it just
>>> a giving name? Do they map to platform devices in linux kernel? Do
>>> they map to machine devices?
>> I've not checked but I guess it's following the name of the mach-*
>> directories in the kernel.
>>>   If I were to add support for Freescales' i.MX51 cores, which would
>>> be the agreed subarchitecture?
>>>   * mx51
>>>   * mx5
>>>   * mx5x
>>>   * imx51
>>>   * imx5
>>>   * imx5x
>> I would say mx5 as in mach-mx5 in the kernel but someone needs to check
>> if it's really possible to have mx50/mx51/mx53 in same kernel. I
>> remember some people on l-a-k ml saying it was not possible.
>  ignore what i wrote - arnaud's making a good point.  bizarre as the
> discrepancy between the official name from freescale and the choice by
> lakml to drop the "i" is, following the exact same choice made by the
> linux kernel team(s) makes a lot more sense than inventing something
> from arbitrary choice.

Freescale is/(was ?) using mxc for common "part" of their SoC and
was using mach-mx51 for imx51 in their bsp tree. iirc, they've now
dropped mach-mx51 in favor of mach-m5 like in mainline. Don't know about
how was handled imx50/53 in their tree.


Reply to: