From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-iw0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OX9Jf-0007Pj-96 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:52:16 +0200 Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so1946132iwn.6 for ; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:47:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iF6f98x0lgM1YTXIjbgPs3JCq0uI6g8eTcVwIEp5QE8=; b=SSeeatpgmQK3Gt3S8XFId+3KEuUBUA3k7ITBPPPwfSzl5zP/xqeO02mxgEBul/Amr8 GSTfUNx/5hQRZQ54Ylai9xcJfMo3VkFGKsTe22OYbO8m49sPnKpY7R/1eV+zNdTAmd1p lKYdfB4btKZKos+lTlN6gEL/T4GAytxeRYNLM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IbvQP+PybY74XSaeiLmHQW8E+NNfCDrW8NOLN8f9JexYPRegoZ390d+smh1fiCfiC+ cEnnawMRm3EbsmuujJuRKoIVIsO91ddACxXXR3sK2qgOsXvyXnrl+1X55pUfcgtN9e/Y OO54hCcjOGdTP6k+p8yDM3INKSqphtV0pOyZc= Received: by 10.231.40.6 with SMTP id i6mr8630406ibe.26.1278623556242; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:12:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.14.131 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1278622050.15825.18.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> References: <1278444743-4924-1-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1278444743-4924-4-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1278622050.15825.18.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> From: Khem Raj Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:12:16 -0700 Message-ID: To: Phil Blundell X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.214.175 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: raj.khem@gmail.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][v3 3/4] uClibc: redo configuration X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:52:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 12:02 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> I would have a feature called 'nobx' because most of the machines >> we support actively in OE has BX. With current state this needs to >> be added to MACHINE features for almost all arm machines. We can instead >> have nobx and keep USE_BX enabled and only disable it if nobx appears >> in machine_features. Otherwise I have tested the patches myself >> and they seems to work well. > > I'm not sure that putting bx (or nobx) in MACHINE_FEATURES really > conveys any information that you can't already get from TARGET_ARCH plus > THUMB_INTERWORK. =A0It's also worth noting that the latter is a DISTRO > variable so, if you did add a competing bx flag to MACHINE_FEATURES, it > would be difficult to ensure that the two were consistent. hmm TARGET_ARCH wouldnt be the one but BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH does have sub-arch info. Although I would agree with you that we can build this information fr= om BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH but its not as bad to have it as a machine feature either= . > > p. > > >