> Op 22 apr. 2015, om 09:18 heeft Koen Kooi <[email protected]> het volgende > geschreven: > > >> Op 19 feb. 2015, om 04:34 heeft Nathan Rossi <[email protected]> het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> This reverts commit 0b891265716c414ade29d587fc1a3c4ea7beadbe. >> >> U-Boot does support AArch64, this however was only added to newer >> versions of U-Boot and at the time of this original commit the U-Boot in >> OE-Core did not support the 'arm64' architecture. OE-Core now has a >> newer version of U-Boot for the mkimage recipe and thus supports the >> 'arm64' architecture. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nathan Rossi <[email protected]> >> --- >> meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 1 - >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass >> b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass >> index bbcfa15..6a6ad91 100644 >> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass >> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass >> @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ def map_uboot_arch(a, d): >> >> if re.match('p(pc|owerpc)(|64)', a): return 'ppc' >> elif re.match('i.86$', a): return 'x86' >> - elif re.match('arm64$', a): return 'arm' >> return a > > I just debugged a boot failure to this revert. The machine in question is > using u-boot 2013.04 + vendor patches and can’t be replaced at this time. I > get that OE doesn’t care about vendor trees using obsolete versions, but this > case is extra annoying because a few lines later this bbclass does: > > export UBOOT_ARCH = "${@map_uboot_arch(d.getVar('ARCH', True), d)}" > > instead of: > > export UBOOT_ARCH ?= "${@map_uboot_arch(d.getVar('ARCH', True), d)}" > > So now I’m forced to overlay kernel-arch.bbclass with the revert reverted and > hope I don’t get any machines with a recent u-boot. Having said all that, > modern uboots should default to zImage for arm32 and Image for aarch64 and > have CONFIG_SUPPORT_RAW_INITRD enabled so mkimage isn;t needed anymore. > > So, opinions on weakly assigning UBOOT_ARCH?
Nathan corrected my thinko: 09:25 < nrossi> just curious around the UBOOT_ARCH, does overriding it work? as in UBOOT_ARCH_<machine> = "foo" 09:26 * koen tries 09:38 < nrossi> koen: i think changing it to a ?= for the future is probably worth it. But i imagine getting that change backported would be a pain 09:40 < koen> UBOOT_ARCH_aarch64 = "arm" in local.conf also seems to work 09:41 < koen> I never realized that would take precedence over python methods 09:41 < nrossi> well its not the python method that is setting it 09:42 < koen> ah, right 09:42 < koen> it's set using a method, not by the method So I don’t need the class overlay anymore! -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
