From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 15:05:54 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Setting Defaults for RISCV64 Architecture In-Reply-To: <29a7876d-c734-e09c-4e60-8d62e08c7775@embecosm.com> References: <862bfe2f-fc60-ead9-2b63-b6a0f23c59cd@embecosm.com> <20180814140305.0184f5a1@windsurf> <29a7876d-c734-e09c-4e60-8d62e08c7775@embecosm.com> Message-ID: <20180814150554.3fdc4fd0@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:35:37 +0100, Mark Corbin wrote: > > For the Linux kernel itself, there isn't really a problem, as we allow > > the user to select the Linux kernel version/source with lots of freedom > > (arbitrary official version from kernel.org, arbitrary commit/tag from > > a Git repository, arbitrary tarball, etc.). > I know that the options are pretty flexible,? but is there a good way to > preselect the correct version for riscv64? At the moment the default is > 'Latest version (4.17)' and the user would have to go and reconfigure > this by hand to point at the custom git repo. Nope, for the Linux kernel source code, I don't think we want to add architecture-specific default versions. Just leave it to the user to know which version to build. It's already something a user has to do on other architectures as well: the vanilla v4.17 is not always the right choice for a given HW platform. > > However, there is a problem for the kernel headers. If the recently > > released 4.18 kernel still doesn't have what's need for RISCV64, then I > > guess we'll have to temporarily add a special Linux kernel headers > > version in package/linux-headers/Config.in.host for RISCV64. > Is this for building the toolchain? Yes, this is for building the toolchain. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com