On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 13:48 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 13:53 +0100, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:24:16AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > [...] > > > IMHO RPi1 is best supported by Raspbian, or if people really want it in > > > Debian then by armel, but not by an armhf+armel hybrid which involves > > > supporting v6 in some way on armhf. > > > > I had a few RPi1s running with armel. For simple tasks (e.g. > > network2gpio or i2c) it's more than enough. I wonder if an armel > > -armmp kernel would be worth the trouble. We currently have the > > following armel kernel targets: > > > > -kirkwood (multiplatform support since v3.14 (ba5a37e521942)) > > -orion5x (multiplatform support since v4.5 [0]) > > -versatile (DT only since v4.5 [0]) > > > > So maybe switch to -armv5 and -armv6 multiplatform kernels from > > v4.5+? > > ARMv5 multiplatform would be nice, but we're constrained by the size of > flash partitions on the small machines that are supported so I don't > think this would work. I had another think about this and compared kirkwood and orion5x. It seems that they are similar enough that we can combine them without breaking the size limit (~2 MB compressed), though the result is very close. Combining with versatile is probably not possible. After reducing the number of flavours in this way, we could add a v6 kernel for armel too, but who would use it? RPi 1 users expect armhf (rebuilt for v6) not armel. Ben. > > -armv5 kirkwood + orion5x + versatile > > -armv6 bcm2036 > > > > [0] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1601.2/03005.html > > I don't think we're going to add any more hardware support to the armel > port at this stage. > > Ben. > -- Ben Hutchings 73.46% of all statistics are made up.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part