
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 09:23:01AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 09:05, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 08:57:41AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 03:56, Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com wrote:
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.
Sort of. Can we use the 'cpu' for this, insteading of reading a config symbol?
The problem is that "cpu" for riscv is not that determines this. None of the existing symbols that buildman puts in a handy table are.
OK, so can we fix/change that? Or do we need to add yet another field to boards.cfg, just for riscv?
Well, it's a side effect of what we do / don't do with Kconfig. ARCH_RV32I and ARCH_RV64I set 32BIT or 64BIT which are also more common symbols. It's also not that cpu should be what matters here as we have configa/ae350_rv{32,64}_defconfig using the ax25 CPU.