This commit provides basic support for the Andes 32-bit (nds32)
architecture.
Signed-off-by: Che-Wei Chuang <cnoize@andestech.com>
Signed-off-by: Greentime Hu <greentime@andestech.com>
Signed-off-by: Nylon Chen <nylon7@andestech.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The compiler recognizes a specific 'march' value for Octeon III processors,
so create a 'Target Architecture Variant' entry for it in the target menu.
Note: support for '-march=octeon3' was added in gcc 5.x. However, the
official compiler provided by Marvell (Cavium Networks) uses gcc 4.7.x (and
supports -march=octeon3 via their own modifications). For this reason, no
line 'select BR2_ARCH_NEEDS_GCC_AT_LEAST_5' is added.
Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de_schampheleire@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The compiler recognizes a specific 'march' value for Octeon II processors,
so create a 'Target Architecture Variant' entry for it in the target menu.
Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de_schampheleire@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
It's unclear why Buildroot only defined MIPS 32/64 releases 1, 2, 5 and 6
while 3 exists as well.
Interesting fact:
"Release 4 was skipped because the number four is perceived as unlucky in
many Asian cultures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture#MIPS32/MIPS64
Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de_schampheleire@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
This enables a riscv32 system to be built with a Buildroot generated
toolchain (gcc >= 7.x, binutils >= 2.30, glibc only).
This requires a custom version of glibc 2.26 from the riscv-glibc
repository. Note that there are no tags in this repository, so the
glibc version just consists of the 40 character commit id string.
Thanks to Fabrice Bellard for pointing me towards the 32-bit glibc
repository and for providing the necessary patch to get it to build.
Signed-off-by: Mark Corbin <mark.corbin@embecosm.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Weber <matthew.weber@rockwellcollins.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The armv8.3a generation is a cumulative extension to armv8.2a.
Since gcc correctly enables the appropriate extensions based on the core
name, we don't really need to introduce a separate config for armv8.3a,
and we can piggyback on armv8a.
This new core is AArch64 only.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The armv8.2a generation is a cumulative extension to armv8.1a.
Since gcc correctly enables the appropriate extensions based on the core
name, we don't really need to introduce a separate config for armv8.2a,
and we can piggyback on armv8a.
In theory, gcc supports those cores in arm mode. However, configuring
gcc thusly generates a non-working gcc that constantly whines:
cc1: warning: switch -mcpu=cortex-a55 conflicts with -march=armv8.2-a switch
It is to be noted that the -march flag is internal to gcc. It is not
something that Buildroot did set when configuring gcc; Buildroot only
ever sets --with-cpu (not --with-arch).
Additionally, uClibc fails to build entirely (unsure if this is caused
by the above, or if it is a separate issue, though), with:
#### Your compiler does not support TLS and you are trying to build uClibc-ng
#### with NPTL support. Upgrade your binutils and gcc to versions which
#### support TLS for your architecture. Do not contact uClibc-ng maintainers
#### about this problem.
Glibc and musl have not been tested in arm mode, so maybe we could have
a toolchain that eventually works (or at least, pretends to be working),
but we decided it was not worth the effort.
Thus, we restrict those cores to AArch64 mode only.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Since gcc-8, falkor and qdf24xx have been available only as
AArch64. Indeed, according to upstream commit [1], the released HW has
never supported AArch32.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=96a411453d39e6583fa4d7008761a1977cdbe7fa
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
[Thomas: improve commit log]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Those cores are already guarded by a 64-bit-only condition, so they
can't even select additional options in non-64-bit mode anyway...
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
In commit 325bb37942, support for the
Blackfin architecture was removed. This was our only use of
BR2_GCC_TARGET_CPU_REVISION, and since this config option somewhat
complicates the calculation of the --with-cpu/-mcpu option values,
let's drop it.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
This enables a riscv64 system to be built with a Buildroot generated
toolchain (gcc >= 7.x, binutils >= 2.30, glibc only).
This configuration has been used to successfully build a qemu-bootable
riscv-linux-4.15 kernel (https://github.com/riscv/riscv-linux.git).
Signed-off-by: Mark Corbin <mark.corbin@embecosm.com>
[Thomas:
- simplify arch.mk.riscv by directly setting GCC_TARGET_ARCH
- simplify glibc.mk changes by using GLIBC_CONF_ENV.]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The BR2_GCC_TARGET_* configuration variables are copied to
corresponding GCC_TARGET_* variables which may then be optionally
modified or overwritten by architecture specific makefiles.
All makefiles must use the new GCC_TARGET_* variables instead
of the BR2_GCC_TARGET_* versions.
Signed-off-by: Mark Corbin <mark.corbin@embecosm.com>
[Thomas: simplify include of arch/arch.mk]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Now that we dropped support for blackfin, we no longer have any
architecture that supports FDPIC, so BR2_ARCH_HAS_FDPIC_SUPPORT
is never selected, so we can't select BR2_BINFMT_FDPIC.
Drop all of that now.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
This new symbol will be used by architectures introduced with gcc 8 and
by external toolchains based on gcc 8.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/changes.html
Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Currently, we consider that any VFP FPU is a superset of VFPv2, and thus
we use VFPv2 as a way to detect that a VFP is used.
However, for Cortex-M cores, the optional FPU is not a superset of
VFPv2; it is even not a VFP [0].
As a consequence, we can no longer consider VFPv2 as a indication that
an FPU is present.
So, we introduce two new internal options, BR2_ARM_CPU_MAYBE_HAS_FPU and
BR2_ARM_CPU_HAS_FPU, which we use to consider the presence of an FPU.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-M#Cortex-M4
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Nothing fancy, just a plain Cortex-M, armv7-M core...
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The Blackfin architecture has for a long time been complicated to
maintain, with poor support in upstream binutils/gcc. As of April
2018, the Blackfin architecture has been dropped from the upstream
Linux kernel. Also, the Analog Device engineer who used to be in touch
with the Buildroot community also privately said we should drop the
support for this architecture, which Analog Devices is no longer
using, promoting and maintaining.
The BR2_BINFMT_FLAT_SEP_DATA option becomes unselectable, it will be
removed in a future commit.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Reviewed-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
... to follow the convention: type, default, depends on, select, help.
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Martincoski <ricardo.martincoski@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The old Atom target is not really fitting for recent Atom CPUs based
on Silvermont, Airmont or Goldmont. Those have more in common with
older Desktop CPUs than old Atoms.
Signed-off-by: Norbert Lange <norbert.lange@andritz.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Since we re-organised the list of cores (in 52d500aa35) and introduced
some new cores (in e9960da6ec, d632d9e5a9, 6317a199ec), the default for
AArch64 was accidently changed from A53 to A35.
So, restore the default to A53 for AArch64.
Reported-by: daggs <daggs@gmx.com>
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: daggs <daggs@gmx.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
The armv8.1a generation is a cumulative extension to armv8a. It adds new
extensions, and makes some previously optional ones now mandatory.
Since gcc correctly enables the appropriate extensions based on the core
name, we don't really need to introduce a separate config for armv8.1a,
and we can piggyback on armv8a.
All those new cores are aarch64 only (gcc fails to build in arm mode).
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Some need gcc-5, some gcc-6 and some gcc-7.
The thunderx familly does not build in 32-bit mode (gcc complains
that the CPU is unknown, and even gcc master only knows them as
aarch64-only).
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
The cortex-A32 is an armv8a core, but it lacks the optional AArch64
extensions, so can only work in 32-bit mode.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
For armv8, there are different profiles: A, M and R, like there is for
armv7.
So, rename our internal symbol to mirror what we do for armv7.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Now that the cores are all oredered correctly, we can just enclose all
the non 64-bit cores inside a big if-block, rather than have each of
them have the dependency.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Currently, the logic for ordering the ARM cores in the choice is all
but obvious. ;-)
Reorder the choice by architecture generation, starting with armv4,
ending with armv8.
Add a comment before each generation, just for ease of use. Add a
separate comment for armv7a and armv7m.
Finally, order cores alphabetically inside the same generation (except
for armv7m cores, listed after all armv7a cores).
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Currently, the possibility to choose the floating point mode (32, xx or
64) is conditional on having a sufficiently recent gcc version.
Which means that the architecture selection depends on the gcc version.
But that's opposite to what we've always done in Buildroot: the software
versions are conditional to the architecture options. There is nothing
we can do about the hardware: it is there, we can't change it, while we
can restrict ourselves to using software that is working on said
hardware.
Thus, we inverse the logic, to move the condition onto the software
side: whenever mfpxx is selected, we restrict the toolchain selection to
at least a gcc-5.
And now, the blind BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_MFPXX_OPTION symbol is no longer
needed, so we get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Vicente Olivert Riera <Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Currently the possibility to choose the NaN encoding is conditional to
having a sufficiently recent gcc version.
Which means that the architecture selection depends on the gcc version.
But that's opposite to what we've always done in Buildroot: the software
versions are conditional to the architecture options. There is nothing
we can do about the hardware: it is there, we can't change it, while we
can restrict ourselves to using software that is working on said
hardware.
Thus, we inverse the logic, to move the condition onto the software
side: whenever NaN-2008 are selected, we restrict the toolchain
selection to at least a gcc-4.9.
But now, the option with the NaN type is always set, so we must enclose
the code in gcc.mk inside a HAS_NAN_OPTION condition, as is already done
for the external toolchain case.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Vicente Olivert Riera <Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Take the conditions currently specified in the gcc version choice.
Also, the conditions explained in the commit log for 78c2a9f7 were not
all properly applied, especially the a57-a53 combo needs gcc-6, but
78c2a9f7 forgot to add the condition to gcc-4.9.
gcc-4.9 was excluded for cortex-a17 and a72, but the CodeSourcery
external toolchain, which uses 4.8, was not excluded for those two
cores. Now it is.
Remove the arch condition from gcc and the external toolchains.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
We use the conditions currently expressed in the gcc version choice.
We leave the musl vs mips64 conditions in gcc, because the "fault"
really is on gcc, which does not recognise the mips64+musl tuples,
so the fix lies within gcc, and the current conditions are fitting.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Some CPU variants require that a recent-enough gcc be selected. For
example, ARM's cortex-a35 requires gcc-5, while cortex-a73 requires
gcc-7. Same goes for other architectures, of course.
Currently, we hard-code every such conditions in the gcc version choice,
as well as in the individual external toolchains.
However, as we add even more CPU variants, the conditions are getting
more and more complex to write and maintain.
Introduce new symbols, that architectures can select if they have a
specific requirement on the gcc version. gcc and external toolchains
can then properly depend on those symbols.
The burden of maintaining the requirements on the gcc version now falls
down to the architeture, instead of being split up in gcc and all the
external toolchains.
As the oldest gcc version to handle, we can either choose gcc-4.9, as
the oldest version we support in our internal toolchain, or choose
gcc-4.8, as the oldest external toolchain we support (except for the
custom ones, but they'll be handled specifically in upcoming changes).
We choose to go back up to gcc-4.8.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Those cores are not supported in upstream gcc, not even in master.
The only toolchain that supported those core was the 2014R1 ADI
rebuilt toolchain, but we removed it in 311bc13 (toolchain: kill
ADI Blackfin toolchain) because there was too many issues with it.
ADI has not released any newer toolchain since then.
There is little hope for those cores now, so remove them.
Support for those cores has been useless and unusable for a while
without nobody noticing, therefore we intentionally skip adding
Config.in.legacy. This would require keeping code in
arch/Config.in.bfin since the options being removed are inside a
choice...endchoice block.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
[Thomas: explain why we don't add the options to Config.in.legacy.]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Some cores are not supported by upstream gcc.
Use the newly-introduced symbol to state so, rather than have the
exclusion in the toolchain choice.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Some cores are not supported by upstream gcc.
Use the newly-introduced symbol to state so, rather than have the
exclusion in the toolchain choice.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Upstream gcc does not have support for C-Sky, and we do not have a
vendor tree for it either (yet?).
Use the newly-introduced symbol to state so, rather than have the
exclusion in the toolchain choice.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Some architectures or specific cores do not have support in upstream
gcc. Currently, they are individually listed as exclusions in the
toolchain choice.
This poses a maintainance burden, as the knowledge about what gcc
version supports what architecture is split across many places: the
toolchain choice, the gcc version choice, the external toolchains.
As a first step, add a blind option that architectures or individual
cores may select to indicate they lack support in our internal backend.
Actual use of the option will come in followup patches.
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
The big.LITTLE configurations can be optimised for by gcc, and a few
users wonder what they should choose when they have such CPUs.
Add new entries for those big.LITTLE configurations.
Note: the various combos were added in various gcc versions, but only
really worked in later versions:
Variant | Introduced in | First built in
----------+---------------+----------------
a15-a7 | 4.9 | 4.9
a17-a7 | 5 | 5
a57-a53 | 4.9 | 6
a72-a53 | 5 | 6
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com>
Cc: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
-mfpxx option was added in gcc-5.1.0 so make sure that users cannot
select the "xx" fp32 mode when using toolchains that have a gcc older
than 5.1.0.
-mfp32 and -mfp64 were added in gcc-4.1.0, so given the older gcc
version we support in Buildroot (in the GCC_AT_LEAST options) is 4.3 we
don't need to do anything else for them.
Signed-off-by: Vicente Olivert Riera <Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
