Hi Simon, TL;DR: I am dropping this patch in v4.
On 9/10/24 20:44, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Jerome, > > On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 09:10, Jerome Forissier > <jerome.foriss...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Hello Simon, >> >> On 9/6/24 17:02, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Jerome, >>> >>> On Tue, 3 Sept 2024 at 02:38, Jerome Forissier >>> <jerome.foriss...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> When CROSS_COMPILE contains multiple words, HOST_ARCH is not properly >>>> detected and the sandbox build fail. It typically happens when using >>>> ccache. For example: >>>> >>>> $ make sandbox_defconfig >>>> $ make CROSS_COMPILE="ccache x86_64-linux-gnu-" \ >>>> CC="ccache x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc" >>>> [...] >>>> In file included from boot/bootmeth_efi.c:16: >>>> include/efi_default_filename.h:33:2: error: #error Unsupported UEFI >>>> architecture >>>> 33 | #error Unsupported UEFI architecture >>>> | ^~~~~ As you mentioned in your reply to this patch in v2 [1], this is not a valid use case (CROSS_COMPILE should not be set for sandbox). [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/e2f0809aa4b9d81cf1709a6b82d803a21ea1fac7.1725012294.git.jerome.foriss...@linaro.org/#3377679 >>>> >>>> A similar error occurs when the build is done via buildman and >>>> ~/.buildman contains: >>>> >>>> [toolchain-wrapper] >>>> wrapper = ccache This problem is still present in -next though (which does have your patch "buildman: Support building within a Python venv" [2]). It is my patch "buildman/toolchain.py: do not set CROSS_COMPILE for sandbox" [3] that solves the problem. [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240815195746.749042-2-...@chromium.org/ [3] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/f4defe07f87f6c9761b401d435da03460b3b0947.1725351676.git.jerome.foriss...@linaro.org/ So all in all this patch is not needed. Regards, -- Jerome >>>> Fix the issue by considering only the last word in $(CROSS_COMPILE). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier <jerome.foriss...@linaro.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> Makefile | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile >>>> index f90e48f58a5..dc7bdd79420 100644 >>>> --- a/Makefile >>>> +++ b/Makefile >>>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ include include/host_arch.h >>>> ifeq ("", "$(CROSS_COMPILE)") >>>> MK_ARCH="${shell uname -m}" >>>> else >>>> - MK_ARCH="${shell echo $(CROSS_COMPILE) | sed -n >>>> 's/^[[:space:]]*\([^\/]*\/\)*\([^-]*\)-[^[:space:]]*/\2/p'}" >>>> + MK_ARCH="${shell echo ${lastword $(CROSS_COMPILE)} | sed -n >>>> 's/^[[:space:]]*\([^\/]*\/\)*\([^-]*\)-[^[:space:]]*/\2/p'}" >>>> endif >>>> unexport HOST_ARCH >>>> ifeq ("x86_64", $(MK_ARCH)) >>>> -- >>>> 2.40.1 >>>> >>> >>> I've lost track of this, but did you pull in [1] first? >> >> Oops! No I didn't :-/ In fact I could not find the reference to the patch >> in your initial email, then I forgot about it. >> Would you like me to resend the whole series as v4 with your patch included? > > I just want to know that there is still a problem, with my patch. So > yes please try it and update the commit messages as needed for the two > affected patches. > > Regards, > Simon > > >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simon >>> >>> [1] >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240815195746.749042-2-...@chromium.org/ >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Jerome
