Hi, On 03/11/16 09:10, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 11/03/2016 10:08 AM, Andre Przywara wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 03/11/16 08:54, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> On 11/03/2016 02:36 AM, Andre Przywara wrote: >>>> At the moment we use the arch/arm directory for arm64 boards as well, >>>> so the Makefile will pick up the "arm" name for the architecture to use >>>> for tagging binaries in U-Boot image files. >>>> Differentiate between the two by looking at the CPU variable being >>>> defined >>>> to "armv8", and use the arm64 architecture name on creating the image >>>> file if that matches. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> >>> Why is this important? To know the state you have to be in for >>> SPL->U-Boot transition later? >> Yes. >> >>> Why didn't anyone else stumble over this yet? Because nobody's using >>> SPL? >> Given the warnings and bugs I found when I compiled the SPL for 64 bit >> I'd assume the latter. >> >> But I was asking this question myself already. Apparently everyone just >> hacked their firmware chain to live with "arm" in there, APM being a >> prominent example. > > APM is "special". They even use the "arm" marker for kernels.
Yeah, I remember this ;-) >> So given this I am a bit wary about the implication of this patch, I >> hope that people holler if this breaks their platform (and then fix that >> instead of hacking U-Boot again). > > Well, I guess it's a step into the right direction. I'm still not a huge > fan of having both 32bit and 64bit binaries on the same platform, but > indicating which one we are is a good idea :). I was thinking the same. Even if we eventually scratch that idea this patch shouldn't hurt, and makes U-Boot more versatile. Cheers, Andre. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
