On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 08:11:31AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > in my experience with xtensa, it has some basic customizable > core/instruction set (in this case it is lx106) which is then optimized > for some application (for example for esp8266). At the end, this > toolchain won't be able to build binary for different lx106 based > hardware. In this case the naming is wrong. It should be: > binutils-xtensa-lx106-esp8266 > binutils-espressif-esp8266 > binutils-xtensa-lx106-espressif-esp8266 > or some thing like this...
My understanding is the core is the "xtensa" architecture and "lx106" refers to the customizations of that core. The ESP8266 and ESP32 both use the Xtensa architecture, but the variant in the ESP8266 is the lx106 and in the ESP32 it's an lx108. > If debian maintainers will decide to include this toolchain, then we > need to develop unified naming shema for this kind of toolchains, > because we already have completely opened firmware based on xtenas for > different hardware, see firmware-ath9k-htc package. Extra toolchain for > this package will make step forward reproducible builds. xtensa-lx106-elf is the common prefix in the wild for the ESP8266, xtensa-esp32-elf is in use for the ESP32/lx108 pairing. Looking at the HTC firmware package it appears *it's* the one engaging in namespace problems by using xtensa-elf for the customised core. I think it should probably be xtensa-htc-elf at least. There's an open RFP for gcc-xtensa (#868895). I think with the right amount of work a single pair of binutils-xtensa/gcc-xtensa packages could be built that allowed run time configuration of which core was being targeted, but I've been using these ESP8266/lx106 packages for the past 4 months and it seems reasonable to get them uploaded and available for use. J. -- ] https://www.earth.li/~noodles/ [] Why do I get the feeling I'm [ ] PGP/GPG Key @ the.earth.li [] going to regret this? [ ] via keyserver, web or email. [] [ ] RSA: 4096/0x94FA372B2DA8B985 [] [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
