On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Alejandro Hernandez <alejandro.hernan...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 05/31/2017 01:46 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Alejandro Hernandez >> <alejandro.hernan...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hey Andy, >>> >>> >>> On 05/30/2017 05:32 PM, Andre McCurdy wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Alejandro Hernandez >>>> <alejandro.hernan...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey Leo, >>>>> >>>>> Nope, this change only applies to qemuARM, the other ARM based BSPs are >>>>> based on > ARMv6 >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 05/30/2017 02:59 PM, Leonardo Sandoval wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> is this change only applies to qemu arm? I wonder if the native arm >>>>>> arch >>>>>> needs a similar series. >>>>>> >>>>>> Leo >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 11:44 -0700, Alejandro Hernandez wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SMP kernel config presents issues on qemuarm because: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CONFIG_SMP=y >>>>>>> Dependencies Missing: >>>>>>> - CPU_V6K or CPU_V7: >>>>>>> These are selected by setting: >>>>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_MULTI_V7=y >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_MULTI_V6=y >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But our QEMU + ARM BSPs are based on armv4/v5 hence they are >>>>>>> incompatible with CONFIG_SMP. >>>> >>>> Maybe time to think (again) about updating OE's qemu ARM builds to >>>> ARMv7. >>> >>> I believe qemu has deep issues with newer ARMs, and thats why it's been >>> kept like that. >> >> >> Qemu itself should be fine with the newer ARMs .. but we've just targeted >> a >> lowest common >> denominator (and simple) ARM arch for this target. Since the primary goal >> isn't testing the ISA or arch >> specifics via qemuarm/qemuarm64 (rather, sanity, base arch support, etc). >> > > I think it will be more effective if we tested most used configuration > instead, it would help a larger community. GCC 7 also dropped armv5 ( the t > variants are still supported ) > > I would think keep the name qemuarm but use armv7 based machine to emulate > would be an option I am sure meta Linaro has some work on this that can be > used in oe core > > > I would also assume they've got some work on this, it'd be nice to contact > them and see if this can be done, although I asked on IRC several times to > see what people thoughts were on if we should upgrade and I practically got > no feedback.
http://git.linaro.org/openembedded/meta-linaro.git/tree/meta-aarch64/conf/machine http://git.linaro.org/openembedded/meta-linaro.git/tree/meta-linaro/conf/machine looks at genericarm* conf files. -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto