Hello Khem, On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 15:56 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 2:00 PM Alexandre Belloni > <alexandre.bell...@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 19/01/2024 19:24:44+0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 18:48 +0100, Thomas Perrot wrote: > > > > 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_dynami > > > > c.elf.ld > > > > :54: undefined section `.dynsym' referenced in expression" > > > > > > The commit should at least mention the issue. > > > > > > I'm also not sure that is "Inappropriate", more like "Pending" as > > > in > > > needs further investigation. > > > > The original commit states that relocations don't need to be > > handled > > because everything is linked statically which is not true in our > > case, > > else we wouldn't be trying to link dynamically. > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > ...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? > > > > > > I have no idea, I've copied Khem who might or might know who to > > > talk > > > to. > > We have so far build a non-PIC version but I would suggest we start > doing PIC version > set FW_PIC=y in EXTRA_OEMAKE and try it out. >
Thank you, indeed it's better. Kind regards, Thomas > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin > > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > > https://bootlin.com -- Thomas Perrot, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#194125): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/194125 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
