Bug#825024: linux: add MIPS r6 and N32 support
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.
If you think standalone n32/x32 port is not useful at all,
can you help to modified the 4 N32 port to the same way with x32?
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
--
YunQiang Su
Reply to: