armv6 tree vs. buildkernel

[Warner Losh]

On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> 
>>> P.S.  How is CPUTYPE/TARGET_CPUTYPE supposed to be inferred for regular "buildworld"?
>>> The only option I can find is to set it explicitly in /etc/src.conf
>> 
>> It can't possibly work very well.  We need to get TARGET_ARCH=armv6 working instead of continuing these kludges.
> 
> 
> Help get me oriented and I'll start grinding through this.
> 
> What values of TARGET_ARCH should be supported?

arm, armeb, armv6 (and maybe armv6eb if they make those).

> Right now, there are ARCH values of arm and armeb.
> Should there be armv6eb?  armv7?

There should be no armv7, since armv6 means v6 and later.  At some point there will be an arm64, I suppose too.

> I'm also unclear on the distinction between make's MACHINE_ARCH
> and uname -p; are these supposed to be the same?  If so, shouldn't
> make be using a sysctl instead of a hard-coded value?

I thought it already did.  That might not be a bad idea.  MACHINE_ARCH and uname -p should be identical.  If they aren't, that's a bug.

I posted patches here before to do all (most?) of MACHINE_ARCH=armv6.  Have you tried them on the armv6 branch?  I've not had a chance to port them over yet.

Warner