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: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:36:01AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM Martin Michlmayr <tbm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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.
