Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-22 Thread Richard Purdie
On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 17:52 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Even with last version of jansa/tune it does not really help with rebuilds $ bitbake-diffsigs stamps.1348241943/*/armv5te-oe-linux-gnueabi/linux-libc-headers-3.4.3-r0.do_configure* basehash changed from 82dd3229952508550532e9ab37e78dc4

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-21 Thread Martin Jansa
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 09:01:42AM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 01:58:31PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 14:14 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:42:06AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:20 +0200, Martin

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-15 Thread Martin Jansa
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 01:58:31PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 14:14 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:42:06AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:20 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Richard

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-13 Thread Martin Jansa
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Hi, when building spitz and qemuarm (both produces packages in armv5te feed) resulting packages are tuned with -mtune=xscale (when built for spitz) or

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-13 Thread Richard Purdie
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:20 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Hi, when building spitz and qemuarm (both produces packages in armv5te feed) resulting packages are tuned

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-13 Thread Martin Jansa
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:42:06AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:20 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Hi, when building spitz and qemuarm (both

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-13 Thread Richard Purdie
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 14:14 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:42:06AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:20 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-13 Thread Mark Hatle
On 9/13/12 5:42 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:20 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Hi, when building spitz and qemuarm (both produces packages in armv5te feed)

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-13 Thread Phil Blundell
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 11:47 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: ARM seems to be the one exception, where you have three levels.. ABI (EABI/hf-EABI), processor family (armv4, armv5, armv7, cortext), and then CPU optimization. This seems to cause additional confusion, as the CPU optimizations are

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-12 Thread Richard Purdie
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Hi, when building spitz and qemuarm (both produces packages in armv5te feed) resulting packages are tuned with -mtune=xscale (when built for spitz) or -mtune=arm926ej-s (when built for qemuarm). From

[OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Martin Jansa
Hi, when building spitz and qemuarm (both produces packages in armv5te feed) resulting packages are tuned with -mtune=xscale (when built for spitz) or -mtune=arm926ej-s (when built for qemuarm). From https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1916#c5 Firstly, if you go changing the tune

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Martin Jansa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:01:55PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Hi, when building spitz and qemuarm (both produces packages in armv5te feed) resulting packages are tuned with -mtune=xscale (when built for spitz) or -mtune=arm926ej-s (when built for qemuarm). From

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Phil Blundell
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Shouldn't spitz produce something like armv5te-xscale and qemuarm armv5te-arm926ejs? That's a DISTRO policy decision really. armv5te, in common with most of the PACKAGE_ARCHes, represents an ISA. That is, it is guaranteed to only contain

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Martin Jansa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 15:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: Shouldn't spitz produce something like armv5te-xscale and qemuarm armv5te-arm926ejs? That's a DISTRO policy decision really. armv5te, in common with most of the

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Phil Blundell
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 18:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: If we drop DEFAULTTUNE from tune-xscale and tune-arm926ejs then PACKAGE_ARCH=armv5te would be the same and the same feed will be built only once. Well, that would also make those two tune files rather useless. It seems like it would be

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Martin Jansa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:14:22PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 18:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: If we drop DEFAULTTUNE from tune-xscale and tune-arm926ejs then PACKAGE_ARCH=armv5te would be the same and the same feed will be built only once. Well, that would also

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Martin Jansa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:21:07PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:14:22PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 18:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: If we drop DEFAULTTUNE from tune-xscale and tune-arm926ejs then PACKAGE_ARCH=armv5te would be the same and

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Phil Blundell
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 19:35 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: If this works then DISTRO would have finer control of which DEFAULTTUNE to use 1) default: don't use mtune, optimize only for march (don't mix mtune in the same feed). 2) include optimized-tune.inc in distro.conf: use mtune only for

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Martin Jansa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:37:23PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 19:35 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: If this works then DISTRO would have finer control of which DEFAULTTUNE to use 1) default: don't use mtune, optimize only for march (don't mix mtune in the same feed).

Re: [OE-core] qemuarm: should it really have TUNE_ARCH armv5te?

2012-09-11 Thread Mark Hatle
On 9/11/12 12:43 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:37:23PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 19:35 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: If this works then DISTRO would have finer control of which DEFAULTTUNE to use 1) default: don't use mtune, optimize only for march