[Buildroot] [PATCH] arch/arm: use EABIhf by default with VFP
Peter Korsgaard
peter at korsgaard.com
Mon Oct 26 07:47:54 UTC 2015
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> writes:
> Dear Peter Korsgaard,
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:53:06 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>> > diff --git a/arch/Config.in.arm b/arch/Config.in.arm
>> > index 4d10f4c..f0110b1 100644
>> > --- a/arch/Config.in.arm
>> > +++ b/arch/Config.in.arm
>> > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ endchoice
>> > choice
>> > prompt "Target ABI"
>> > depends on BR2_arm || BR2_armeb
>> > + default BR2_ARM_EABIHF if BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2
>>
>> I think we should only do it when we are certain it will run,
>> E.G. arm926 (our default variant) selects MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2, but it is
>> afaik quite rare to see arm9s with a vfp.
>>
>> Committed with that changed, thanks.
> default BR2_ARM_EABIHF if BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2
> was indeed wrong, since having BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 does not
> indicate that the SoC has VFP.
Indeed.
> However, unlike BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_NEON which gets selected even on ARM
> cores for which NEON is optional, but for which the user has explicitly
> requested NEON support to be enabled (through BR2_ARM_ENABLE_NEON), it
> is not the case for the VFP option. I think we should do that.
> Otherwise, BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2 will not be true, even if the VFPv2
> unit is actually available and used.
But packages should use the BR2_ARM_FPU_VFPV2 (and 3/4) symbols to check
if they should use the VFP, and not BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2
I don't think kconfig will let us both have these options depend on
BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_VFPV2 || BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2 and select
BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_VFPV2.
--
Venlig hilsen,
Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list