On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:39:48AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.cla...@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
>>> > You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
>>> >
>>> > I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
>>> > major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
>>> > compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
>>> > components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
>>> > The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
>>> > environmental variable in u-boot recipe.
>>> I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a
>>> stand alone app
>>> in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it
>>> would be possible
>>> to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to 
>>> see if
>>> that can be done. It will simplify using this layer.
>> Actually, pine64 has a 64bit U-Boot, I think maybe the layer just needs
>> to be updated to use mainline (or v2016.09.01) U-Boot.
>>> Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do
>>> not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway.
>> Well, you do if you want a bootable image to be made :)  iirc all of the
>> models are SD card only, no eMMC so assuming firmware "elsewhere" is a
>> bad idea.
> You can always write a recipe to package a prebuilt u-boot.

Hi all,

unfortunately the pine64 mainlilne u-boot is not compatible with the
kernel I'm compiling.
To package a prebuilt u-boot could be one solution. At the moment I'm
investigating the possibility
of patching u-boot to compile it with multilib.

yocto mailing list

Reply via email to