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

Bug#825024: linux: add MIPS r6 and N32 support



On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 20:16 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 19:32 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Ben Hutchings  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 11:14 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Ben Hutchings  wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 22:52 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Package: src:linux
> > > > > > > Version: 4.5 - 4.6
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hi, this patch add mipsn32 and mipsn32el support and also add
> > > > > > > 6 MIPS r6 architectures.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > mipsn32 and mipsn32el have same flavors with mips64 and mips64el.
> > > > > > Since we have multiarch it is not necessary to duplicate kernel
> > > > > > packages with identical configurations in multiple Debian
> > > > > > architectures.  All the N32 architectures should be used in multiarch
> > > > > > configurations together with the corresponding 64-bit architectures.
> > > > > > (The same should be true for O32 architectures, but that won't happen
> > > > > > until the corresponding 64-bit architectures are in the main archive.)
> > > > > I won't push N32 architecture to the main Debian archive.
> > > > > I just wish the code in the upstream, so I will not have to maintain another
> > > > > git repo, and merge patches again and again.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In fact, I may build a standalone N32 private archive in future.
> > > > I will still insist that N32 architectures do not have their own
> > > > kernels, only userland packages (linux-libc-dev, linux-kbuild, linux-
> > > > perf, etc.)
> > > Yes, so mipsn32/mipsn32el architectures has the same flavors with
> > > mips64/mips64el.
> > > 
> > > N32 here is about 2 new architectures named mipsn32/mipsn32el.
> > > To make these architectures installable, they must have their own
> > > kernel packages, like
> > > linux-image-4.6.0-1-loongson-3_$(THE_VERSION).mipsn32el.deb.
> > > 
> > > This package has the same content with:
> > > 
> > > linux-image-4.6.0-1-loongson-3_$(THE_VERSION).mips64el.deb.
> > [...]
> > 
> > No.  They must be used in a multiarch configuration, same as x32.
> in debian/config/x32/defines, there is a line:
> # empty; x32 must be part of a multiarch installation with an amd64 kernel
> 
> I know that n32 is quite same as x32, while I cannot understand why
> both of them have to be 'in a multiarch configuration',
> and cannot be a standalone architecture?

Because they really are in a multiarch configuration.  They rely on a
64-bit kernel.  Labelling it as belonging to the same architecture as
32-bit userland is a hack, which we no longer need to use.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
You can't have everything.  Where would you put it?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: