[U-Boot] [PATCH] common: image: Allow mkimage to build a uImage for extensa
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
Currently we get the following failure when trying to build a uImage for extensa:
$ ./tools/mkimage -A xtensa
Invalid CPU Type - valid names are: alpha, arm, x86, ia64, m68k, microblaze, mips, mips64, nios2, powerpc, ppc, s390, sh, sparc, sparc64, blackfin, avr32, nds32, or1k, sandbox, arm64
Add an entry for extensa so that a uImage can be built.
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert@linux-m68k.org Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com --- common/image.c | 1 + include/image.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/image.c b/common/image.c index 9c6bec5..e0bdaf3 100644 --- a/common/image.c +++ b/common/image.c @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ static const table_entry_t uimage_arch[] = { { IH_ARCH_SANDBOX, "sandbox", "Sandbox", }, { IH_ARCH_ARM64, "arm64", "AArch64", }, { IH_ARCH_ARC, "arc", "ARC", }, + { IH_ARCH_EXTENSA, "extensa", "EXTENSA", }, { -1, "", "", }, };
diff --git a/include/image.h b/include/image.h index 6afd57b..7595745 100644 --- a/include/image.h +++ b/include/image.h @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ struct lmb; #define IH_ARCH_OPENRISC 21 /* OpenRISC 1000 */ #define IH_ARCH_ARM64 22 /* ARM64 */ #define IH_ARCH_ARC 23 /* Synopsys DesignWare ARC */ +#define IH_ARCH_EXTENSA 24 /* Extensa */
/* * Image Types
Hi Fabio,
Thanks for the patch, but the name is actually 'xtensa' (without the 'e'). Would be great if you could change that.
Thanks, -Chris
On 4/28/14, 9:48 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
Currently we get the following failure when trying to build a uImage for extensa:
$ ./tools/mkimage -A xtensa
Invalid CPU Type - valid names are: alpha, arm, x86, ia64, m68k, microblaze, mips, mips64, nios2, powerpc, ppc, s390, sh, sparc, sparc64, blackfin, avr32, nds32, or1k, sandbox, arm64
Add an entry for extensa so that a uImage can be built.
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert@linux-m68k.org Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
common/image.c | 1 + include/image.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/image.c b/common/image.c index 9c6bec5..e0bdaf3 100644 --- a/common/image.c +++ b/common/image.c @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ static const table_entry_t uimage_arch[] = { { IH_ARCH_SANDBOX, "sandbox", "Sandbox", }, { IH_ARCH_ARM64, "arm64", "AArch64", }, { IH_ARCH_ARC, "arc", "ARC", },
- { IH_ARCH_EXTENSA, "extensa", "EXTENSA", }, { -1, "", "", }, };
diff --git a/include/image.h b/include/image.h index 6afd57b..7595745 100644 --- a/include/image.h +++ b/include/image.h @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ struct lmb; #define IH_ARCH_OPENRISC 21 /* OpenRISC 1000 */ #define IH_ARCH_ARM64 22 /* ARM64 */ #define IH_ARCH_ARC 23 /* Synopsys DesignWare ARC */ +#define IH_ARCH_EXTENSA 24 /* Extensa */
/*
- Image Types
Dear Fabio Estevam,
In message 1398746935-11855-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com you wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
Currently we get the following failure when trying to build a uImage for extensa:
$ ./tools/mkimage -A xtensa
...
- { IH_ARCH_EXTENSA, "extensa", "EXTENSA", },
Is this "xtensa" or "extensa"?
And which actual architecture would that be? I cannot find any architecture support for xtensa in U-Boot mainline, so why should we add image support for it?
If you plan to add support for this architecture, then please submit this patch as part of the series that adds such architecture support.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Fabio Estevam,
In message 1398746935-11855-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com you wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
Currently we get the following failure when trying to build a uImage for extensa:
$ ./tools/mkimage -A xtensa
...
{ IH_ARCH_EXTENSA, "extensa", "EXTENSA", },Is this "xtensa" or "extensa"?
It is xtensa, sorry.
And which actual architecture would that be? I cannot find any architecture support for xtensa in U-Boot mainline, so why should we add image support for it?
If you plan to add support for this architecture, then please submit this patch as part of the series that adds such architecture support.
Ok, understood.
Looks like the quick fix is for Michael/Geert do not build uImage for xtensa on their automated build environments.
Regards,
Fabio Estevam
Dear Fabio,
In message CAOMZO5BozLxi65cknttwu2hA0OGy_N=VZBbwm7_WWMaRBbKK6w@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Looks like the quick fix is for Michael/Geert do not build uImage for xtensa on their automated build environments.
What would you do with an uImage file when there is no U-Boot to load it?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Fabio,
In message CAOMZO5BozLxi65cknttwu2hA0OGy_N=VZBbwm7_WWMaRBbKK6w@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Looks like the quick fix is for Michael/Geert do not build uImage for xtensa on their automated build environments.
What would you do with an uImage file when there is no U-Boot to load it?
Michael's build system builds uImage for xtensa: http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/10665903/
,so it makes more sense simply not to build uImage for such architecture.
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 12:52 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Fabio,
In message CAOMZO5BozLxi65cknttwu2hA0OGy_N=VZBbwm7_WWMaRBbKK6w@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Looks like the quick fix is for Michael/Geert do not build uImage for xtensa on their automated build environments.
What would you do with an uImage file when there is no U-Boot to load it?
Michael's build system builds uImage for xtensa: http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/10665903/
so it makes more sense simply not to build uImage for such architecture.
It just runs "make".
The decision about building a uImage must be in the .config somewhere.
This failure is for allnoconfig, so presumably there is something like a CONFIG_DONT_BUILD_UIMAGE which is getting set to n by allnoconfig. If you can tell me what that option is I can force it back on (I think).
cheers
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Michael Ellerman mpe@ellerman.id.au wrote:
It just runs "make".
The decision about building a uImage must be in the .config somewhere.
This failure is for allnoconfig, so presumably there is something like a CONFIG_DONT_BUILD_UIMAGE which is getting set to n by allnoconfig. If you can tell me what that option is I can force it back on (I think).
It seems that xtensa uses an out of tree U-boot port then.
Chris mentioned that he plans to upstream xtensa u-boot support.
arch/xtensa/boot/boot-uboot/Makefile does force the uImage to be generated.
Hi,
I have a port for the Xtensa architecture ready, and it would be great if you could include it in the mainline tree. I still have to finish another project, but could start sending patches for RFC to this mailing list in a week or two.
Thanks, -Chris
On 4/29/14, 8:48 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Fabio,
In message CAOMZO5BozLxi65cknttwu2hA0OGy_N=VZBbwm7_WWMaRBbKK6w@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Looks like the quick fix is for Michael/Geert do not build uImage for xtensa on their automated build environments.
What would you do with an uImage file when there is no U-Boot to load it?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (5)
-
Chris Zankel -
czankel
-
Fabio Estevam -
Michael Ellerman -
Wolfgang Denk