[yocto] TARGET_FPU for mpc8315e-rdb listed as SPE??

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 10-11-10 10:03 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>> On 10-11-10 09:11 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10-11-10 08:38 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>> On 10-11-10 01:46 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>>>> Why does the meta/conf/machine/mpc8315e-rdb.conf list TARGET_FPU as
>>>>>> SPE. This isn't correct for an MPC8313 SoC.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't used at the moment, so we can safely
>>>>> ignore this.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a hold over from when I initially created
>>>>> the BSP, and I've since changed it locally, but
>>>>> haven't sent the updated BSP yet.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify on this point, the kernel configuration
>>>> is NOT using SPE for this, and I was attempting to
>>>> use the FPU setting to trigger some different gcc
>>>> flags during development the base of that test was
>>>> an e500 board, so the SPE setting leaked in, but is
>>>> unused.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, it is actually using soft-float, and
>>>> I had planned to submit a change to clarify that.
>>>>
>>>> If there's another option, let me know and I'll
>>>> rebase my patches and change it again.
>>>
>>> We should NOT be using soft-float for mpc8315e (it has HW floating point on this chip).
>>
>> Indeed. I fell back to a safe multilib. I'm willing
>> to try again and see if the gcc bootstrap phases will
>> build.
>>
>> The kernel was fine, and is fine, it was userspace
>> that caused problems for me .. and that's definitely not
>> an area where my expertise lies :)
>>
>> I needed something that worked, and had to excplicitly
>> chose to ignore the FPU temporarily, but revisiting that
>> now seems like a good idea.
>>
>>>
>>> Any plans to get an e500 based system going before the rev1.0 release?
>>
>> We've got tonnes of experience and BSPs to draw from
>> here. The selection of some of these BSPs was (largely)
>> based on cost and availability. If we can get our
>> hands on a suitable e500 replacement .. the switch is
>> trivial.
>
> If we can get a toolchain and basic build I'm happy to help on the HW side and getting kernel, etc worked out.

Agreed. For me, this is the slightly harder part. I'll
start a few builds and see if the errors are still here.

>
> I'd like to get a semi-generic setup going for an e500v2 based system.

Should be doable. I've already got a generic set of configs/
patches/features in place for all powerpc/FSL boards,
(largely due to the lineage of the base kernel we use).
But getting some assistance with  further tuning of the
options would be appreciated, since I can use that to springboard
the creation of new BSPs.

Cheers,

Bruce



>
> - k