| 1 |
There has already been som effort in this area. I think the conclusion |
| 2 |
was that the syntax of /proc/cpuinfo was much to inconsistent to be |
| 3 |
usable. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
A patch to change the syntax of cpuinfo is probably the right solution. |
| 6 |
Just pull the supported archs from the compiler compiling the kernel and |
| 7 |
put a suitable arch in cpuinfo. |
| 8 |
Hint: gcc-3.2/gcc/config/i386/i386.c |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
-John |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > > 4. It would be really nice if we had a tool to automate the detection of |
| 13 |
> > > the build architecture (CHOST, -march & -mcpu) based on the info from |
| 14 |
> > > /proc/cpu to help the newbie with the installation procedure. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > considering the *large* number of /proc/cpuinfo and the fact that one set |
| 17 |
> does |
| 18 |
> > not map properly onto the other set, this is impossible to a degree |
| 19 |
> > (-march/-mcpu) |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > in terms of CHOST, simply picking the right stage tarball would be enough |
| 22 |
> ... |
| 23 |
> > most people shouldnt have to change it |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Atleast for x86 there's a fairly small number of /proc/cpuinfo layouts. I |
| 26 |
> cannot speak for other architectures though. And its all in the kernel |
| 27 |
> sources, imho its fairly simple to write an automated detection system. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> CHOST will probably be changed by all those using stage1. |
Archives