From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:45:51 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] configs/qemu: add qemu_riscv64_virt_defconfig In-Reply-To: References: <20180831143853.24340-1-mark.corbin@embecosm.com> <20180902214755.139a1b23@windsurf> <6b529ca2-bfeb-227e-e76b-0465e52d8bf0@embecosm.com> Message-ID: <20180905084551.0e4d3e6c@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, 4 Sep 2018 21:57:11 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 04/09/2018 17:14, Mark Corbin wrote: > > I had been reluctant to add riscv-pk to Buildroot as a bootloader, as I > > see it as an interim solution until riscv support makes it into UBoot or > > Barebox. > > If riscv-pk/bbl offers all the features you need, why would you use U-Boot or > Barebox? For the same reason that you use U-Boot or Barebox on real hardware, rather than a completely dumb "kernel loader": shell, environment variables, scripting, etc. I'm not saying this is always needed, but it seems like some people like those features :-) > > I do have a preliminary riscv-pk package working based on your helpful > > pointers to boot-wrapper-aarch64. Do people prefer to add it as > > 'risc-pk' when it is only the Berkeley Boot Loader part that is > > significant? I would have added it as 'bbl', but I can see the potential > > confusion when the package/repository is 'riscv-pk'. > > Unless there is some convincing reason for it, we prefer to stick with the > upstream name. I agree. It's true that besides the BBL, there is not much in the riscv-pk repo that would be useful in the context of Buildroot, but riscv-pk is just as good as riscv-bbl, and riscv-pk has the advantage of matching the upstream name. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com