[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 02/10] Makefile: use "arm64" architecture for U-Boot image files

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

On 11/03/2016 10:08 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/11/16 08:54, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 11/03/2016 02:36 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> At the moment we use the arch/arm directory for arm64 boards as well,
>>> so the Makefile will pick up the "arm" name for the architecture to use
>>> for tagging binaries in U-Boot image files.
>>> Differentiate between the two by looking at the CPU variable being
>>> defined
>>> to "armv8", and use the arm64 architecture name on creating the image
>>> file if that matches.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>> Why is this important? To know the state you have to be in for
>> SPL->U-Boot transition later?
> Yes.
>
>> Why didn't anyone else stumble over this yet? Because nobody's using SPL?
> Given the warnings and bugs I found when I compiled the SPL for 64 bit
> I'd assume the latter.
>
> But I was asking this question myself already. Apparently everyone just
> hacked their firmware chain to live with "arm" in there, APM being a
> prominent example.

APM is "special". They even use the "arm" marker for kernels.

> So given this I am a bit wary about the implication of this patch, I
> hope that people holler if this breaks their platform (and then fix that
> instead of hacking U-Boot again).

Well, I guess it's a step into the right direction. I'm still not a huge 
fan of having both 32bit and 64bit binaries on the same platform, but 
indicating which one we are is a good idea :).


Alex