matt@ wrote: > On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Izumi Tsutsui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > rjs@ wrote: > > > >> Izumi Tsutsui wrote: > >>> skrll@ wrote: > >>>> I'd guess > >>>> > >>>> MACHINE=hpcarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv4 > >>>> > >>>> Maybe the port-masters/users can test? > >> > >> I can test hpcarm on an iPAQ. > > > > Ok, good to hear. > > > >>> Unfortunately all these ports are orphaned. > >> > >> There were updates to hpcarm recently to get it to work on WZERO3 > >> hardware, what is needed for it not to be considered orphaned ? > > > > "orphaned" means there is no portmainter to make a decision. > > http://www.netbsd.org/people/port-maintainers.html > > > > I have W-ZERO3 and Zaurus machines, but I'm not so motivated > > because I'm not sure what's the actual benefits and risk/concerns > > on switching to earm on such XScale generation machines. > > (most important part is lack of migration method, of course) > > the default processor for earm was chosen so that xscale and above > would get smaller code and slightly higher performance. > > > Is there any documents/articles that describe earm on NetBSD? > > If not, we won't have enough brave users. > > The fact that NetBSD is finally using the ABI that ARM recommends > and linux has been using for years? The apcs (oabi) is not supported > anymore.
What about acorn26 and acorn32? What about SA-1100 iPAQ and Jornada in hpcarm? Linux no longer supports these ancient machines, I guess. Anyway, lack of documentation is still the serious problem. --- Izumi Tsutsui
