On 10/3/22 03:10, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 20:21, Heinrich Schuchardt
<[email protected]> wrote:
riscv32 needs a different toolchain than riscv64
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]>
---
v3:
new patch
---
tools/buildman/boards.py | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/buildman/boards.py b/tools/buildman/boards.py
index 8a0971aa40..cdc4d9ffd2 100644
--- a/tools/buildman/boards.py
+++ b/tools/buildman/boards.py
@@ -263,6 +263,17 @@ class KconfigScanner:
if params['arch'] == 'arm' and params['cpu'] == 'armv8':
params['arch'] = 'aarch64'
+ # fix-up for riscv
+ if params['arch'] == 'riscv':
+ try:
+ value = self._conf.syms.get('ARCH_RV32I').str_value
+ except:
+ value = ''
+ if value == 'y':
+ params['arch'] = 'riscv32'
+ else:
+ params['arch'] = 'riscv64'
+
return params
--
2.37.2
Should we instead do what ARM does?
My patch does exactly the same for RISC-V that was done previously for ARM:
It sets the correct value of arch in dependence of the bitness of the
architecture.
Currently in our Docker image we have an alias entry for 'riscv' in file
.buildman. Don't force users to create such an alias value when running
buildman locally.
Best regards
Heinrich
