Ping?
Raphael, any chance we could get more discussion or agreement from the dpkg
developers regarding the "e500v2" architecture name? Both Sebastian and I
are in full agreement that the name "e500v2" most accurately describes the
fundamental architecture.
I've included the summarized rationale for the choice at the end of this
email, just in case anyone missed the discussion.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
Kyle Moffett
eXMeritus Software
Integrated Intelligence
The Boeing Company
(703) 764-0925
(703) 832-0657 (fax)
kyle.d.moff...@boeing.com
>> * The only chipset families that support "SPE" instructions are:
>> * PowerPC e200
>> * PowerPC e500v1
>> * PowerPC e500v2
>>
>> * The incompatibility between various SPE-capable CPUs mean that an arch
>> spec of "spe" or "powerpcspe" is probably insufficiently descriptive.
>
> Yes, "probably". Right now we don't see any.
>
>> * The "e200" processor series is an automotive processor and has
>> insufficient storage to run even something like Emdebian Crush, let alone to
>> be able to build anything on its own. It should therefore be excluded from
>> our discussion. This means we just care about e500v{1,2} cores.
>
> Right. The spec says, that e200z4 and e200z6 are binary compatible with
> e500. However, they also mention that double precision can only be
> achieved in software. So this looks like double precision opcodes result
> in an invalid opcode and we have to emulate them in kernel. This counts
> as binary compatible I guess.
>
>> * Freescale has indicated that they will not be building any more chipset
>> families including the SPE instructions, so we don't have to worry about any
>> newer chipset families.
>>
>> * We can't tell exactly how common or uncommon the e500v1 chipsets are
>> because Freescale's chipset comparison tables all just say "e500" without
>> referring to the version. As a result, we should probably be safe rather
>> than sorry and refer to the version in the arch name (IE: e500v1/e500v2).
>>
>> * We should just call it just "e500v2":
>> * Sufficiently descriptive of the hardware architecture
>> * Shorter and easier to type in commands (of which there are a lot)
>> * Similar situation to "lpia" (which is not called "i386lpia")
>>
>> The "easier-to-type" reason is especially applicable if we do a uclibc port,
>> as the name "uclibc-linux-powerpce500" is much more of a pain to type out
>> repeatedly than "uclibc-linux-e500".
>>
>> Is there anything I left out?
> No, I think it is fine. You summarzied it well.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
