On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:11 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > > On 10.06.18 15:25, Bin Meng wrote: >> Attempting to use a toolchain that is preconfigured to generate code >> for the 32-bit architecture (i386), for example, the i386-linux-gcc >> toolchain on kernel.org, to compile the 64-bit EFI payload does not >> build. This updates the makefile fragments to ensure '-m64' is passed >> to toolchain when building the 64-bit EFI payload stub codes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > > Is there any sane reason to keep the split between EFI and U-Boot long > size alive? The x86_64 U-Boot port is getting along reasonably well from > what I can tell and 32bit UEFI implementations on 64-bit hosts are dying > out. >
I think you are mixing two type of things. U-Boot building as 32-bit or 64-bit is one thing. How to build U-Boot is another thing. This patch was to address the build. > So can't we just remove all of that cruft altogether instead and just > have x86_64 U-Boot with 64bit EFI stub and i386 U-Boot with 32bit EFI > stub as only combinations? > Some day once U-Boot x86_64 support is mature, we can consider that. Even if we only support 64-bit U-Boot as the 64-bit EFI payload, that does not mean i386-linux-gcc cannot be used. '-m64' is required to pass to such toolchain to cross-compile 64-bit codes correctly. > That would dramatically simplify the code. > Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
