From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 1/3] efivar: bump to version 30
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 16:34:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161203163424.515d4605@free-electrons.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK4VdL2kw5N2R1GukCnRLLe7brJEB9gO1XcOWpn9sgxjw6J3qg@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 16:18:00 +0100, Erico Nunes wrote:
> I took a look at them and it seems that there are two kinds of
> failures. The first is that efivar uses dynamic linking as it uses
> dlfcn.h and this has been exposed now that we no longer restrict to
> glibc, so we should probably restrict it in Config.in for non-static
> builds.
ACK.
> The other failures related to blackfin are weirder, I don't fully
> understand what is going on there yet, but I wonder if it makes sense
> to invest more effort in debugging that.
> I think we could consider limiting efivar/efibootmgr to architectures
> that can actually run EFI. That is, x86_64, aarch64, x86, arm,
> possibly allow in a few other experimental ones (there is a summary at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Processor_compatibility
> ), and only allow little-endian variations as well. I would prefer if
> we didn't have to add architecture restrictions for building, however
> with this we are already maintaining a number of hacks in efivar for
> architectures that will probably never use it anytime soon.
>
> By the way, there is a mention to "since we depend on glibc" in
> efivar.mk which was not removed when the uclibc compatibility patch
> was introduced, so we should update that as well.
OK.
> If you agree with solving that by limiting architectures, I can submit
> these fixes.
Limiting architectures is normally OK when there is a fundamental
reason why it cannot be built/used on a given architecture, so I'm
generally not too happy when we limit architectures just because we
want to avoid build failures and not investigate the real reason.
But since I agree that EFI is very architecture specific, and most
likely never used on Blackin/m68k/etc., I'm fine with a patch limiting
the architectures.
Please introduce a BR2_PACKAGE_EFIVAR_ARCH_SUPPORTS hidden boolean, and
use it in BR2_PACKAGE_EFIVAR, in the comment, in
BR2_PACKAGE_EFIBOOTMGR and its comment.
Thanks a lot!
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-03 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-28 16:35 [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 0/3] efibootmgr: build with uClibc Andy Shevchenko
2016-11-28 16:35 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 1/3] efivar: bump to version 30 Andy Shevchenko
2016-12-03 13:34 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-12-03 15:18 ` Erico Nunes
2016-12-03 15:34 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2016-11-28 16:35 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 2/3] efivar: allow build with uClibc Andy Shevchenko
2016-11-28 16:35 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 3/3] efibootmrg: Allow " Andy Shevchenko
2016-11-28 20:14 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 0/3] efibootmgr: " Thomas Petazzoni
2016-12-13 11:37 ` Andy Shevchenko
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-27 14:32 Andy Shevchenko
2016-11-27 14:32 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 1/3] efivar: bump to version 30 Andy Shevchenko
2016-11-27 15:48 ` Thomas Petazzoni
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=20161203163424.515d4605@free-electrons.com \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox