From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Paul Kocialkowski <contact@paulk.fr>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants"
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:36:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fcd8d97b6714d787297f1b362558e7a68855a1da.camel@paulk.fr>
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.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-10 9:35 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 [this message]
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
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=20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=contact@paulk.fr \
--cc=labbott@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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).