From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants"
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:36:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fcd8d97b6714d787297f1b362558e7a68855a1da.camel@paulk.fr>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 10:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Thanks, Laura.
> >
> > I'll take this as a fix, and add a comment to the Makefile to justify
> > why we need the linux target.
>
> So this comes down to either breaking fedora/debian toolchains (that
> don't support elf emulation mode) or breaking bare-metal toolchains
> (that don't support linux emulation mode).
>
> Since Linux is a bare-metal project that does not technically require
> the linux target (who said using "Linux" for all things is confusing?),
> I think it should aim for the elf target in the long term.
>
> But well, breaking Linux build in common distros isn't good either, so I
> guess it makes sense to revert this while distros toolchains are being
> fixed. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
>
> What do you think?
Yes, we need to revert the change since it's a regression otherwise. I think
the best course of action here would be to find a way that we can either
tell the linker that it doesn't need the missing linker scripts because
we're providing our own, or find a way to pass different LD flags depending
on whether or not we have a linux toolchain.
For now, I've pushed the revert to for-next/fixes.
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Paul Kocialkowski <contact@paulk.fr>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants"
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:36:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fcd8d97b6714d787297f1b362558e7a68855a1da.camel@paulk.fr>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 10:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Thanks, Laura.
> >
> > I'll take this as a fix, and add a comment to the Makefile to justify
> > why we need the linux target.
>
> So this comes down to either breaking fedora/debian toolchains (that
> don't support elf emulation mode) or breaking bare-metal toolchains
> (that don't support linux emulation mode).
>
> Since Linux is a bare-metal project that does not technically require
> the linux target (who said using "Linux" for all things is confusing?),
> I think it should aim for the elf target in the long term.
>
> But well, breaking Linux build in common distros isn't good either, so I
> guess it makes sense to revert this while distros toolchains are being
> fixed. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
>
> What do you think?
Yes, we need to revert the change since it's a regression otherwise. I think
the best course of action here would be to find a way that we can either
tell the linker that it doesn't need the missing linker scripts because
we're providing our own, or find a way to pass different LD flags depending
on whether or not we have a linux toolchain.
For now, I've pushed the revert to for-next/fixes.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-10 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-09 20:09 [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants" Laura Abbott
2018-07-09 20:09 ` Laura Abbott
2018-07-09 23:24 ` Laura Abbott
2018-07-09 23:24 ` Laura Abbott
2018-07-10 0:29 ` Kevin Hilman
2018-07-10 0:29 ` Kevin Hilman
2018-07-10 9:01 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-10 9:01 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-10 9:30 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-07-10 9:30 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-07-10 9:36 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-07-10 9:36 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-13 14:59 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 14:59 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:01 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:01 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:08 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-07-13 15:08 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-07-13 15:07 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-13 15:07 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-13 15:15 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:15 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:30 ` [PATCH] arm64: build with baremetal linker target instead of Linux when available Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:30 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 19:21 ` Laura Abbott
2018-07-13 19:21 ` Laura Abbott
2018-07-13 19:58 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 19:58 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-18 23:08 ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-07-18 23:08 ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-07-19 0:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-07-19 0:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.