* i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning
@ 2016-10-11 7:08 Gary Thomas
2016-10-11 12:20 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gary Thomas @ 2016-10-11 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: meta-freescale
I'm working with machines that have i.MX6Q/DL and i.MX6UL and noticed
that they have quite different tuning.
i.MX6Q:
TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard cortexa9"
TARGET_FPU = "hard"
i.MX6UL:
TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7ve vfp thumb neon cortexa7"
TARGET_FPU = "softfp"
I've not adjusted any GCC tuning for these targets. Just wondering
why the i.MX6Q is hardfp and the i.MX6UL is soft? Anyone know why
this choice was made?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning
2016-10-11 7:08 i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning Gary Thomas
@ 2016-10-11 12:20 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-10-11 13:36 ` Lauren Post
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2016-10-11 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gary Thomas; +Cc: meta-freescale
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> I'm working with machines that have i.MX6Q/DL and i.MX6UL and noticed
> that they have quite different tuning.
>
> i.MX6Q:
> TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard
> cortexa9"
> TARGET_FPU = "hard"
>
> i.MX6UL:
> TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7ve vfp thumb neon cortexa7"
> TARGET_FPU = "softfp"
>
> I've not adjusted any GCC tuning for these targets. Just wondering
> why the i.MX6Q is hardfp and the i.MX6UL is soft? Anyone know why
> this choice was made?
I don't foresee any problem in using hardfp for UL.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning
2016-10-11 12:20 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2016-10-11 13:36 ` Lauren Post
2016-10-11 13:54 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lauren Post @ 2016-10-11 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador, Gary Thomas; +Cc: meta-freescale
We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL
DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"
-----Original Message-----
From: meta-freescale-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:20 AM
To: Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> I'm working with machines that have i.MX6Q/DL and i.MX6UL and noticed
> that they have quite different tuning.
>
> i.MX6Q:
> TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard
> cortexa9"
> TARGET_FPU = "hard"
>
> i.MX6UL:
> TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7ve vfp thumb neon cortexa7"
> TARGET_FPU = "softfp"
>
> I've not adjusted any GCC tuning for these targets. Just wondering
> why the i.MX6Q is hardfp and the i.MX6UL is soft? Anyone know why
> this choice was made?
I don't foresee any problem in using hardfp for UL.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ossystems.com.br&data=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=AF0AUSh3Vs1f1nSKI%2F3GZOvpDmt8uPe5qK3SKdwDYss%3D&reserved=0 https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcode.ossystems.com.br&data=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=saOjj0d7rK2QeQFvNOwzfbXPp6OP7vMSm1Ul5mUBtug%3D&reserved=0
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
--
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.yoctoproject.org%2Flistinfo%2Fmeta-freescale&data=01%7C01%7Clauren.post%40nxp.com%7Cfdfd7d6be6224a1e14cd08d3f1d139da%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=GR0alZx5pe1vlXhk438emCNLRGLHFOoDYc%2Bv8l5SRjI%3D&reserved=0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning
2016-10-11 13:36 ` Lauren Post
@ 2016-10-11 13:54 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-10-12 1:24 ` Gary Thomas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2016-10-11 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lauren Post; +Cc: meta-freescale, Gary Thomas
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post <lauren.post@nxp.com> wrote:
> We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL
>
> DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"
Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine
overrides setting. Please take a look.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning
2016-10-11 13:54 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2016-10-12 1:24 ` Gary Thomas
2016-10-12 1:35 ` Gary Thomas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gary Thomas @ 2016-10-12 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador, Lauren Post; +Cc: meta-freescale
On 2016-10-11 15:54, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post <lauren.post@nxp.com> wrote:
>> We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL
>>
>> DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"
>
> Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine
> overrides setting. Please take a look.
>
I started with a clone of imx6ulevk.conf which does not contain this
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning
2016-10-12 1:24 ` Gary Thomas
@ 2016-10-12 1:35 ` Gary Thomas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gary Thomas @ 2016-10-12 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador, Lauren Post; +Cc: meta-freescale
On 2016-10-12 03:24, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2016-10-11 15:54, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post <lauren.post@nxp.com> wrote:
>>> We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL
>>>
>>> DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon"
>>
>> Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine
>> overrides setting. Please take a look.
>>
>
> I started with a clone of imx6ulevk.conf which does not contain this
>
Thanks for the pointers. Somehow I ended up with an incorrect
override in my i.MX6UL machine config files which I've now corrected.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-12 1:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-10-11 7:08 i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning Gary Thomas
2016-10-11 12:20 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-10-11 13:36 ` Lauren Post
2016-10-11 13:54 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-10-12 1:24 ` Gary Thomas
2016-10-12 1:35 ` Gary Thomas
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.