Bug#703209: linux: Please Add multiplatform flavour to armhf
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
Hi,
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 08:41 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for your comment.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 08:35 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
>> >> Package: linux
>> >> Version: 3.8.2-1~experimental.1
>> >> Severity: wishlist
>> >> Tags: patch
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> >From linux 3.8, support of armada 370/xp was added in arm.
>> >> This is classified into the armhf architecture of debian.
>> >> First I began and thought that an armada flavor would be added.
>> >> When I consulted about this in debian-arm ML, I got advice from
>> >> several developers what "multiplatform" flavour was better than
>> >> "armada" flavour[0].
>> >>
>> >> Since arm is developed toward multiplatform from now on,
>> >> I think that "multiplatform" is desirable.
>> >> Although there is still little SoC which is supporting
>> >> multiplatform, I would like to support armada 370/xp
>> >> (mach-mvebu) first.
>> >>
>> >> I created the patch which supports this.
>> >> Please check and apply.
>> >
>> > In future all ARM kernels should be multi-platform, but I expect there
>> > will still be different flavours, such as for LPAE or the RT featureset.
>> > I would much prefer a name that will provide a more useful distinction
>> > in future (and not be too long!). Perhaps it should refer to the CPU
>> > requirement like the flavours for some other architectures.
>>
>> I see. Although it is very simple, how is "armmp"?
armmp is imho confusing. There are some Marvell platforms called MMP.
> [...]
>
> Sounds alright to be, but let's allow the other ARM porters a few more
> days to comment.
I already commented some days ago on debian-arm that currently
multiplatform support must wait. It is useless as usb support is
_broken_ on multiplatform. Hopefully, Linaro devs seem back to work
and looks like we may have a patch merged soon. Until then, doing more
is near to a waste of time.
And about the patch in this bug, it fails to be really
multiplatform. During my tests on 3.8, I could already enable platforms
like MVEBU, HIGHBANK, BCM, MXC and you can enable OMAP too with 2-3
backports. Once done, it needs to be tested on real platforms as it
would probably allow to detect some more bugs. 3.9 may be better.
On the long term, we'll have also to consider if we should keep
omap/mx5/vexpress or not. If we remove them, we should make sure that
the transition will work nicely.
Arnaud
Reply to: