
On 10/3/22 03:10, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 20:21, Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com wrote:
riscv32 needs a different toolchain than riscv64
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com
v3: new patch
tools/buildman/boards.py | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/buildman/boards.py b/tools/buildman/boards.py index 8a0971aa40..cdc4d9ffd2 100644 --- a/tools/buildman/boards.py +++ b/tools/buildman/boards.py @@ -263,6 +263,17 @@ class KconfigScanner: if params['arch'] == 'arm' and params['cpu'] == 'armv8': params['arch'] = 'aarch64'
# fix-up for riscv
if params['arch'] == 'riscv':
try:
value = self._conf.syms.get('ARCH_RV32I').str_value
except:
value = ''
if value == 'y':
params['arch'] = 'riscv32'
else:
params['arch'] = 'riscv64'
return params
-- 2.37.2
Should we instead do what ARM does?
My patch does exactly the same for RISC-V that was done previously for ARM: It sets the correct value of arch in dependence of the bitness of the architecture.
Currently in our Docker image we have an alias entry for 'riscv' in file .buildman. Don't force users to create such an alias value when running buildman locally.
Best regards
Heinrich