It'd have to be more finely grained than sub-architecture since a kernel for one target won't necessarily work on other CPU of the same sub-architecture (e.g. a Kirkwood kernel won't work on all ARMv5 processors).
I am still assuming the split is going to be between softfp and hardfp (ABI), rather than arch (ARMv6 vs ARMv7).
Oh, and there's no such thing ar ARMv9 (yet at least).
Gordan
Jon wrote:
So is the idea is to have kernel rpm for each sub-architecture. ARMv5, ARMv7, ARMv9?
What about the user-land? Would we keep seperate repos to have optimized bits for v7/9?
On Mar 29, 2011 9:49 AM, "Gordan Bobic" <gordan@bobich.net mailto:gordan@bobich.net> wrote:
Derek Atkins wrote:
Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com mailto:jcm@redhat.com> writes:
On Sat, 2011-03-26 at 21:10 +0000, Matthew Wilson wrote:
- Some kernel build strategy.
There are a couple of us looking into this at the moment. The thinking (thus far, only really started pondering recently) goes that we need a kernel RPM but using the F13 kernel is basically certain death in terms of the number of extra patches needed, etc. Therefore, we'll take
2.6.38
and do a rawhide-like kernel RPM that is also installable on F13 to get going. I'm thinking we'll start with an OMAP kernel RPM that works on BeagleBoard-xM and PandaBoard and work from there.
Is this something that would also work on a Sheeva or Guru plug?
Conceptually, yes, but not the same kernel rpm. Sheeva/Guru is based on a Marvell Kirkwood chip (ARMv5) while the BeagleBoard and PandaBoard are Cortex A based (ARMv7). At least judging by the kernel configuration options, it doesn't seem possible to build a single kernel for both.
Gordan
arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto:arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm