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

Re: Increasing minimum 'i386' processor



Dear Raphaël,
Raphaël Hertzog schrieb am 20.11.2011 08:40:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Also possibly:
>> 6. DM&P/SiS Vortex86 and Vortex86SX.  These supposedly have all
>>    586-class features except an FPU, and we could probably keep FPU
>>    emulation for them.
> 
> FWIW, I do run Debian on such systems albeit with a custom kernel.
> Given those CPU tend to be used in an "embedded" context I guess
> it's ok if the official kernel does not support them. But it would be
> nice if Debian's userspace could be kept compatible. Not sure what this
> requires though...

judging from the section you quoted from Ben's e-mail, I'd say you shouldn't be
affected in the short term if the FPU is really the only thing missing to make
it a full 586-class CPU (of course, a further increase to a higher instruction
set class would hit you).
Apart from that I wonder how many "embedded" x86 CPUs (instruction set < 586)
are out there. Are they still sold in current products? If so it might(!) be
worth to keep compatible with them, even if that would mean an additional kernel
build*. On the other hand most embedded kernels are custom build anyway, in
which case "offering the tools" to build a running Debian system should be
enough, right?

* The question here is (again): do we have some numbers on this, that could
guide the decision? If not and the assumption by the kernel maintainers is "few
systems still operational run with CPUs which don't at least support 586
instructions", then I'd find it reasonable to still disable the support in the
kernel. In case a huge amount of systems is still running with such CPUs chances
are good, we're hearing of them then. ;-)

Kind regards,
Kai Wasserbäch



-- 

E-Mail: curan@debian.org
IRC: Curan
Jabber: drizzt@debianforum.de
URL: http://wiki.debian.org/C%C3%B9ran
GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2      0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: