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

Re: Debian ARM architectures and subarchitectures

Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011, Hector Oron wrote:
>> static const char *supported_generic_subarches[] = {
>>     "dove",
>  matches mach-dove, no plat-dove
>>     "omap",
>  matches plat-omap, but no mach-omap (mach-omap1 supports OMAP1xxx and
>  mach-omap2 supports OMAP 2+ -- 2xxx, 3xxx, 4xxx).
>>     "omap4",
>  doesn't match any plat or mach dir
>>     "mx51",
>  neither does this
>> and machine mappings has:
>>     { "Freescale MX51 Babbage Board", "imx5" }, /* iMX51 reference hardware. */
>  plat-imx5 is a name which was used in the Freescale BSP which also used
>  mach-imx51 in the past.
>> Would it break 'others' configurations if we set/change 'mx5' as
>> subarchitecture, which seems to be the most reasonable one at the
>> moment.
>  I think you really want to go for mx5; as this was never supported in
>  Debian so far, that should be ok; if you need to change existing
>  imx5/mx51 bits, poke the Ubuntu folks (or I can forward) as it might
>  impact them.
>  I've commented in Debian #612376 on why we want mx5; quoting myself:
>                                           """Currently, the upstream
>  kernel doesn't support building both i.MX51 and i.MX53 in the same
>  kernel but the Linux Linaro branch and the Freescale BSP kernel do;
>  also, I think the patches by Eric Miao allowing this (runtime phys
>  offset patches -- i.MX51 has phys RAM at 0x90000000 while i.MX53 has it
>  at 0x70000000, see arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot) are pending in
>  Sacha Hauer's tree, but I'm not entirely sure.

that's why I was talking of checking imx51/imx53 support in same
kernel. iirc imx50 has same addresses as imx53.

>  Technically, mx5 would only support mx51 right now, but would soon
>  allow supporting mx53 as well, notably for mx53loco / quickstart boards
>  which I bet a bunch of Debian ARM users will get."""

tbh, I was thinking of loco boards when talking of imx53. Given the
price of loco, it makes them interesting so would be bad to have 2
kernels instead of one.

>  In the kernel, there's plat-mxc, mach-imx, mach-mx3 and mach-mx5.  I
>  expect Debian will want to support popular mach-mx5 hardware for i.MX51
>  (Efika MX Smartbook and Smarttop) and i.MX53 (Freescale MX53LOCO /
>  Quickstart board).
>  Also note that the currently supported subarches in Debian ARM are:
>  - iop32x (matches mach-iop32x, not plat-iop -- there are some other
>    mach-iop*)
>  - kirkwood (matches mach-kirkwood, no plat-kirkwood I think it's
>    plat-orion)

yeah, it's plat-orion for mach-kirkwood, mach-orion5x. I guess it's true
for mv78xx0 too.


Reply to: