Hello Richard, On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 17:22 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 10:47 +0100, Thomas Perrot via > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > From: Thomas Perrot <thomas.per...@bootlin.com> > > > > This release has: > > - Synopsys DesignWare APB GPIO driver > > - Zicntr and Zihpm support > > - Console print improvements > > - Smepmp support > > - Simple FDT based syscon regmap driver > > - Syscon based reboot and poweroff driver > > - Non-contiguous hpm counters > > - Smcntrpmf support > > - Full sparse hartid support > > - IPI improvements > > - RFENCE improvements > > - Zkr support > > - Andes custom PMU support > > Overall, this release mainly adds more ISA extensions, drivers and > > other improvements. > > > > https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/compare/v1.3.1...v1.4 > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Perrot <thomas.per...@bootlin.com> > > This all seems reasonable but why is there a revert below?
I reverted it otherwise the following link issue occurs:
"build/tmp-glibc/work/riscv64-oe-linux/opensbi/1.4/recipe-sysroot-
native/usr/bin/riscv64-oe-linux/../../libexec/riscv64-oe-
linux/gcc/riscv64-oe-linux/13.2.0/ld.bfd:/src/build/tmp-
glibc/work/riscv64-oe-
linux/opensbi/1.4/git/build/platform/generic/firmware/fw_dynamic.elf.ld
:54: undefined section `.dynsym' referenced in expression"
>
> > ---
> > ...re-Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch | 88
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > .../{opensbi_1.3.bb => opensbi_1.4.bb} | 8 +-
> > 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-
> > firmware-Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch
> > rename meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/{opensbi_1.3.bb => opensbi_1.4.bb}
> > (90%)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-firmware-
> > Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch b/meta/recipes-
> > bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-firmware-Remove-handling-of-
> > R_RISCV_-32-64.patch
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..d14e0b73a9bc
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-firmware-Remove-
> > handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch
> > @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
> > +From bfe480929bcc966e1fdf5afdde8d4c22adba7f6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > 2001
> > +From: Thomas Perrot <thomas.per...@bootlin.com>
> > +Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:16:58 +0100
> > +Subject: [PATCH] Revert "firmware: Remove handling of
> > R_RISCV_{32,64}"
> > +
> > +This reverts commit 2a6d72534d44c39e1de0614970a0dad97b1c41ba.
> > +
> > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [oe specific]
> > +Signed-off-by: Thomas Perrot <thomas.per...@bootlin.com>
>
> If we're going to revert an upstream change, we need to say *why*. We
> need to revert it for some OE specific reason but what is that
> reason?
>
I agree, maybe you have any advice to fix it in another way?
Kind regards,
Thomas Perrot
> We cannot take patches marked as Inappropriate without much more
> information.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#194061): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/194061 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/103782707/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
