From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id EAEFDE00D4A; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.213.41 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.213.41 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21E2E00D42 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 192so16433751vkl.2 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ossystems-com-br.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k6Q6zHltBnI33Xo+tPhmTD59Jl42fJ0xUULOAmO+xnI=; b=Zv6SaGYGEOG/JR94LNWIU3Xt0YV1QYGZMvKLKN5KN9iUTROjh8zlJ/RAzdjrsr5juj LvNjN8Xl/pBSgzsiI7ir3IPj+UDF4tZLkKvmgbVhPj6xD+HwICi4BPb0QARnMKBt3HGg sYnHi1YPTT3VkdU+4YGFbBbHc+t0iXe/OrvWluJniMQMrJGgt0pym4iwNf8iULeBoA0y qzlJmlcCygBXsEgxclTfDjT9qxa046IWLm3EDOcBWoVxxRv8w3VovhVPf5ZKjzl8auI5 ndaunPbfhmTZUIFcnvWUcPxlFVwTiAvBOgnX3FOascNLYPhil6JjYTSl9ed+oYC+A4oH jY1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k6Q6zHltBnI33Xo+tPhmTD59Jl42fJ0xUULOAmO+xnI=; b=jYphLzmt6z0nhkNDu5YmBkV80iOIEU8Pat75puptS4vnX+cmDrJgBHZa31XJrC9JhV 22/wyW6V8PXRwfwJ0C4S3cETFVJEq2LydvPVYGgAId06Z1Od1hZGFtsZWcpk6RKcc7UH Dz3wh5XLz0VYxzBEKVwKom74iKVHtG+2G/xOs8c2pHINRH0OLs/HgpZASGE/4haJ2Ztq yZkFpSVNIEnLsqkVMBa3P16KGns8fZQV8nnliHkm7bgO5PqMy8/NDYQfJaxos8gnQYsR tmsDmUYjh23c+kuDbujGOTArE7Nv3FR+7NW9uF7Ieksi0/AXTgBLXTWlTq1tNJMOjmI0 BaXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rkf6tcBQo7VzX9Ihdw1v+XWWCit3WMjnfwdBJqQ7ehkBA3YZzLhM2fwZrd64NXIMA== X-Received: by 10.31.3.155 with SMTP id f27mr2444385vki.64.1476188428095; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com. [209.85.213.43]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m194sm1325330vke.7.2016.10.11.05.20.27 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Otavio Salvador X-Google-Original-From: Otavio Salvador Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z126so16657274vkd.0 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.31.50.212 with SMTP id y203mr2844912vky.29.1476188426783; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.110.143 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:20:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <80282b74-4a74-e3b7-aafa-bc9a53a7d38c@mlbassoc.com> References: <80282b74-4a74-e3b7-aafa-bc9a53a7d38c@mlbassoc.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:20:23 -0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Gary Thomas Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:20:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Gary Thomas 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