Hi Alex,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
On 11.06.18 04:34, Bin Meng wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:11 AM, Alexander Graf agraf@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.cn@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.
Yes, but then all of this would be unconditional for the full code base and not depend on CONFIG_EFI_STUB_64BIT at all :).
No, it is not unconditional. The '-m64' flag will only be added when compiling efi_stub.c if CONFIG_EFI_STUB_64BIT is on. See below.
CFLAGS_efi_stub.o := -fpic -fshort-wchar -DEFI_STUB \ $(if $(CONFIG_EFI_STUB_64BIT),-m64)
I'm just wary that the efi payload code is quite hard to follow with all the combinations of 32/64 payload/u-boot bitnesses.
Yes, but not that bad. Still manageable :)
Regards, Bin