Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 2/2] configs/zynqmp_zcu106_defconfig: transition to tarballs

From: Luca Ceresoli via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
To: "Frager, Neal" <neal.frager@amd.com>
Cc: "Simek, Michal" <michal.simek@amd.com>,
	"'giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com'"
	<giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>,
	"'buildroot@buildroot.org'" <buildroot@buildroot.org>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 2/2] configs/zynqmp_zcu106_defconfig: transition to tarballs
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 17:01:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220802170112.00ff0966@booty> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR12MB5004860BC0816E61B757266AF09A9@CH2PR12MB5004.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Neal,

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:59:11 +0000
"Frager, Neal" <neal.frager@amd.com> wrote:

> Hi Luca,
> 
> > Hi Neal,  
> 
> On 13/05/22 06:21, Neal Frager wrote:
> > Hi Peter, Luca,
> >
> >
> >  
> >> Le 12 mai 2022 à 21:33, Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >> CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
> >>
> >>  
> >>>>>>> "Neal" == Neal Frager <nealf@xilinx.com> writes:  
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>  
> >>>>> I had to also pass the -m* flags in EXTRA_COMPILER_FLAGS to get it 
> >>>>> to link, presumably the petalinux toolchain has incompatible 
> >>>>> defaults. Luca, any specific reasons to not pass CFLAGS there?  
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm afraid I have no real answer. :( When I initially wrote the 
> >>>> script I did it to have the same logic as petalinux. Later I didn't 
> >>>> watch for its changes. I would love to be helpful but I have no 
> >>>> access to a zynqmp board now.  
> >>  
> >>> Would it be possible for you to just implement the changes that 
> >>> Peter has proposed?  Peter appears to have already identified a solution.  
> >>  
> >>> Both Peter and I have zcu106 boards, so we can both test and verify 
> >>> the update works.  
> >>
> >> Sorry, that is not true. I haven't found the magic incarnation to get 
> >> a working pmufw build with the toolchain built by crosstool-ng. My 
> >> diff was just to show what I had to change to adjust 
> >> zynqmp-pmufw-builder to use a petalinux toolchain.
> >>  
> >
> > Is there a reason why we cannot change the zynqmp-pmufw-builder to download the same toolchain that petalinux uses as the crosstool-ng toolchain?  
> 
> > Can you point to where the petalinux toolchain comes from?  
> 
> > If petalinux uses a publicly available prebuilt toolchain, possibly with sources available, then this could be considered.  
> 
> > However I suspect it does use a toolchain that is shipped by Vitis. If it is the case, then it's not an option here.  
> 
> > The est option would be to fix the ct-ng toolchain of course, but I'm 
> > afraid I cannot be very helpful on this, especially without an 
> > hardware to test. :(  
> 
> > Vitis and PetaLinux 2022.1 use GCC compiler 11.2.0 with the following patch set:
> > https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx/tree/xlnx-rel-v2022.1/meta-microblaze/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-11  
> 
> I wanted to follow up on this.  Have you had a chance to apply these patches to the compiler used by the zynqmp-pmufw-builder?
> 
> It would be great if we could update the zynqmp-pmufw-builder to generate good pmufw images for zynqmp and kria soms in time for the 2022.2 update.

Apologies, I had zero spare time to try this. :(

-- 
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot