From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants"
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:07:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180713150701.GA3049@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180713145910.2mlzip5ssk72cleo@localhost>
Hi Olof,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 07:59:10AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:16AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 10:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Thanks, Laura.
> > > >
> > > > I'll take this as a fix, and add a comment to the Makefile to justify
> > > > why we need the linux target.
> > >
> > > So this comes down to either breaking fedora/debian toolchains (that
> > > don't support elf emulation mode) or breaking bare-metal toolchains
> > > (that don't support linux emulation mode).
> > >
> > > Since Linux is a bare-metal project that does not technically require
> > > the linux target (who said using "Linux" for all things is confusing?),
> > > I think it should aim for the elf target in the long term.
> > >
> > > But well, breaking Linux build in common distros isn't good either, so I
> > > guess it makes sense to revert this while distros toolchains are being
> > > fixed. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Yes, we need to revert the change since it's a regression otherwise. I think
> > the best course of action here would be to find a way that we can either
> > tell the linker that it doesn't need the missing linker scripts because
> > we're providing our own, or find a way to pass different LD flags depending
> > on whether or not we have a linux toolchain.
> >
> > For now, I've pushed the revert to for-next/fixes.
>
> Hi Will,
>
> This is regressed in mainline as well. But I think we can just use a (slightly
> improved) ld-option here? I checked it for x86 regression since it uses the
> one-argument version. Patch is here, can you pick that up instead and get it in
> for 4.18-rc?
I already sent the revert to Linus, but I can certainly queue the ld-option
for 4.19 if we pick up some more tested-bys. Could you send it out as its
own patch please?
Cheers,
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-13 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-09 20:09 [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants" Laura Abbott
2018-07-09 23:24 ` Laura Abbott
2018-07-10 0:29 ` Kevin Hilman
2018-07-10 9:01 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-10 9:30 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-07-10 9:36 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-13 14:59 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:01 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:08 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-07-13 15:07 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-07-13 15:15 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 15:30 ` [PATCH] arm64: build with baremetal linker target instead of Linux when available Olof Johansson
2018-07-13 19:21 ` Laura Abbott
2018-07-13 19:58 ` Olof Johansson
2018-07-18 23:08 ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-07-19 0:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
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=20180713150701.GA3049@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).