So is the idea is to have kernel rpm for each sub-architecture. ARMv5,
ARMv7, ARMv9?
What about the user-land? Would we keep seperate repos to have optimized
bits for v7/9?
On Mar 29, 2011 9:49 AM, "Gordan Bobic" <gordan(a)bobich.net> wrote:
Derek Atkins wrote:
> Jon Masters <jcm(a)redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 2011-03-26 at 21:10 +0000, Matthew Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Some kernel build strategy.
>> There are a couple of us looking into this at the moment. The thinking
>> (thus far, only really started pondering recently) goes that we need a
>> kernel RPM but using the F13 kernel is basically certain death in terms
>> of the number of extra patches needed, etc. Therefore, we'll take 2.6.38
>> and do a rawhide-like kernel RPM that is also installable on F13 to get
>> going. I'm thinking we'll start with an OMAP kernel RPM that works on
>> BeagleBoard-xM and PandaBoard and work from there.
>
> Is this something that would also work on a Sheeva or Guru plug?
Conceptually, yes, but not the same kernel rpm. Sheeva/Guru is based on
a Marvell Kirkwood chip (ARMv5) while the BeagleBoard and PandaBoard are
Cortex A based (ARMv7). At least judging by the kernel configuration
options, it doesn't seem possible to build a single kernel for both.
Gordan
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm