Oops, I wanted to include Pali and Segher when I sent the series, I
prepared a script including them but used the wrong script at the end.
Le 11/07/2022 à 17:05, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Christophe Leroy
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
@@ -183,6 +183,18 @@ config 405_CPU
bool "40x family"
depends on 40x
+config 440_CPU
+ bool "440 (44x family)"
+ depends on 44x
+
+config 464_CPU
+ bool "464 (44x family)"
+ depends on 44x
+
+config 476_CPU
+ bool "476 (47x family)"
+ depends on PPC_47x
Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a 476?
No idea, maybe not.
Maybe add another !PPC_47x dependency for the first two. Ideally we would also
enforce that 440/464 based boards cannot be selected together with 476, though
I guess that is a separate issue.
Yes can do that.
By the way, 440/464 boards get excluded from kernel/cputable.c when 47x
is selected
Is there a practical difference between 440 and 464 when building kernels?
gcc seems to treat them the same way, so maybe one option for both is enough
here.
I don't know.
Christophe