Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] configs/sipeed_licheepi_zero: update Linux, U-Boot to fix build

[Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>]

Hello Julien,

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 23:18:02 +0200
Julien Olivain via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote:

> Since Buildroot commit [1] dc0f7215c6 "package/gcc: switch to 13.x as
> default", sipeed_licheepi_zero_defconfig fails when building the Linux
> kernel with the error message:
> 
>     drivers/ata/libahci.c: In function 'ahci_led_store':
>     ./include/linux/compiler.h:350:45: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_1138' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: sizeof(_s) > sizeof(long)
>       350 |         _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __LINE__)
> 
> This issue is fixed by upstream Kernel commit [2].
> 
> This commit fixes this issue by updating the Linux Kernel from v5.3.5
> (which is not a LTS series) to v6.12.43 (which is a LTS series
> including the fixes). With this update,
> BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_INTREE_DTS_NAME is updated accordingly to follow the
> new DTS organization.
> 
> This commit also updates U-Boot from 2022.01 to 2025.07. This new
> version now requires BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_NEEDS_GNUTLS=y.
> 
> While at it, this commit also switches to a stable glibc Bootlin
> external toolchain, to follow the new guidelines from [3].
> 
> Finally, this commit adds BR2_DOWNLOAD_FORCE_CHECK_HASHES=y and the
> corresponding hash files. The .checkpackageignore is also updated to
> reflect that change.
> 
> Fixes:
> https://gitlab.com/buildroot.org/buildroot/-/jobs/11026771001
> 
> [1] https://gitlab.com/buildroot.org/buildroot/-/commit/dc0f7215c604e845009e03784a221332867bf35a
> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=f07788079f515ca4a681c5f595bdad19cfbd7b1d
> [3] https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2024#Rules_for_defconfigs
> 
> Cc: Michel Stempin <michel.stempin@wanadoo.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr>

Thanks for the patch!

However, for defconfig, don't we normally require that changes are
runtime tested on the HW? That's a bit the whole point of our defconfig
I believe. Jumping from 5.3 to 6.12 is a big jump that deserves testing
on HW. If HW is no longer available because the defconfig maintainer is
not responsive and nobody else has the HW to test, the defconfig should
be dropped I'd say.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot