> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 12:24:03 -0600 > From: Tom Rini <[email protected]>
Hi Tom, > Hey all, > > I am wondering if at this point in time, anyone still builds our host > tools (fw_printenv / fw_getenv, a few others) to run on macOS or > Windows, natively. > > I ask for two reasons. The first of which is that a reason we still have > to support Azure (despite its slowness) for CI is it's where we have > macOS and Windows hosts. But at this point in time there's so many ways > to have Linux userspace running on Windows or macOS that I don't know > that there's any value to these builds. > > The second reason is more macOS specific and is that with: > > commit 8fbcc0e0e839a8e25f636c76e59311033d3817b5 > Author: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > Date: Thu Nov 13 12:54:51 2025 +0100 > > boot: Assure FDT is always at 8-byte aligned address > > The fitImage may contain FDT at 4-byte aligned address, because alignment > of DT tags is 4 bytes. However, libfdt and also Linux expects DT to be at > 8-byte aligned address. Make sure that the DTs embedded in fitImages are > always used from 8-byte aligned addresses. In case the DT is decompressed, > make sure the target buffer is 8-byte aligned. In case the DT is only > loaded, make sure the target buffer is 8-byte aligned too. > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > > Which does things we must do, we now don't build on macOS. Why? As best > I can tell (and for a general purpose OS, is a good call), memalign(..) > doesn't exist and you need to use posix_memalign, a not drop-in > replacement. We could spend some time reworking the code here for that, > but for now I've instead gone with this workaround so that CI can > continue: > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/ Are you sure about this? The code in boot/image-fdt.c is part of U-Boot itself, not the host tools. As such it should be irrelevant whether the host OS provides memalign() or not; U-Boot provides its own implementation. OpenBSD doesn't have memalign() either. But I can still build the targets I care about on OpenBSD. Or is this about sandbox? Did sandbox ever work on macOS? > But longer term, unless people say they need and use these tools, I'm > inclined to remove them from CI and remove this workaround, for the > v2026.04 release. > > -- > Tom > > [2:application/pgp-signature Show Save:signature.asc (228B)] >
