Hi,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:58:33PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:42:49PM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:36:01AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM Martin Michlmayr [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

As Arnd points out, Debian used to have support for various iop32x
devices.  While Debian hasn't supported iop32x in a number of years,
these devices are still usable and in use (RMK being a prime example).

I suppose it could be a good idea to add support for iop32x to
OpenWrt and/or OpenEmbedded, both of which support some
pretty constrained systems.

This platform is not really too constrained... E.g. on N2100 you have
512 MB RAM, SATA disks and gigabit ethernet. Not that different from
mvebu that Debian currently (?) supports. Maybe with multiplatform they
could support iop32x again.

Probably not.  The kernel has a dividing line between ARMv5 and ARMv6
where it's not possible to multiplatform across that boundary, so
you're already needing separate kernel images there.

Secondly, armhf distros won't be compatible with ARMv5, and to make
them compatible will make performance on armhf suffer - you have to
stop using barriers, exclusive load/store and a few other things.
You have to rely on the kuser page exported by the kernel (which is
now optional as it's deemed to be a security issue for ROP attacks)
for some things that such a userspace requires - such as NPTL support.

Effectively, ARMv5 is an entirely separate userspace distro from armhf.

I thought they still had armel for ARMv5 and mvebu (kirkwood).

A.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel