Re: Bug#703209: linux: Please Add multiplatform flavour to armhf
On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 12:52 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 15:05 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> >> I think the question here is what the `uname -r` bit should be.
> >> Specifically the $FLAVOUR in 3.x.y-z-$FLAVOUR.
> >
> > Woops, I missed that uname -r includes the flavour bit.
> >
> >> I think there is an argument for making the multiplatform case be the
> >> default "no-flavour flavour" i.e. $FLAVOUR is armhf/arm64 etc. Or
> >> maybe that's what you are suggesting having not realised that `uname
> >> -r` currently includes the -$FLAVOUR suffix. Hrm, I think we may
> >> actually be talking about the same thing ;-)
> >
> > Right, my suggestion is just to use the architecture for the flavour, as
> > is done on the other architectures.
> >
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> In ARM ((but may be used on other architectures as well) ) all architectures,
> flavor with the name of the CPU do is that it is multiplatform?
> For example, armv7 flavor is multiplatform support in armhf.
A single multiplatform kernel can support both armv6 and armv7 (or armv4
+ armv5). I don't know if Debian plans to have separate versions for
each architecture version - there may be performance benefits to this -
in which case using armv6 -v7 etc sounds like a good idea. Also, a
multiplatform kernel can't support armv5 and armv6, so there may need to
be more than one 'mp' version anyway.
--
Tixy
Reply to: