From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C7B8C54E90 for ; Thu, 22 May 2025 15:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9820B830F3; Thu, 22 May 2025 17:37:16 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=andestech.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id AFCD5830F4; Thu, 22 May 2025 17:37:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Atcsqr.andestech.com (60-248-80-70.hinet-ip.hinet.net [60.248.80.70]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D862830E9 for ; Thu, 22 May 2025 17:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=andestech.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ycliang@andestech.com Received: from mail.andestech.com (ATCPCS34.andestech.com [10.0.1.134]) by Atcsqr.andestech.com with ESMTPS id 54MFaogw034531 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 22 May 2025 23:36:50 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from ycliang@andestech.com) Received: from swlinux02 (10.0.15.183) by ATCPCS34.andestech.com (10.0.1.134) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 22 May 2025 23:36:50 +0800 Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 23:36:47 +0800 From: Leo Liang To: Tom Rini CC: Conor Dooley , , , Mayuresh Chitale Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] u-boot-riscv/master Message-ID: References: <174785279069.2062062.17616710293064147131.b4-ty@konsulko.com> <20250522-eradicate-clip-538f48710ad7@spud> <20250522144559.GL100073@bill-the-cat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250522144559.GL100073@bill-the-cat> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (e0e92c31) (2023-03-25) X-Originating-IP: [10.0.15.183] X-ClientProxiedBy: ATCPCS33.andestech.com (10.0.1.100) To ATCPCS34.andestech.com (10.0.1.134) X-DKIM-Results: atcpcs34.andestech.com; dkim=none; X-DNSRBL: X-MAIL: Atcsqr.andestech.com 54MFaogw034531 X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 08:45:59AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 12:28:18PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 12:39:50PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 May 2025 17:50:03 +0800, Leo Liang wrote: > > > > > > > The following changes since commit a3e09b24ffd4429909604f1b28455b44306edbaa: > > > > > > > > Merge tag 'mmc-2025-05-20' of https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-mmc (2025-05-20 08:35:31 -0600) > > > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-riscv.git > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Merged into u-boot/master, thanks! > > > > This PR seems to have made my CI blow up, and I'm not entirely sure if > > that's something intentional or not. I've not yet bisected, but since > > the error is "Image arch not compatible with host arch", I can only > > imagine the patch in question is: > > | Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: image: Add new image type for RV64 > > | Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:48:55 +0000 [thread overview] > > | Message-ID: <20250404144859.112313-2-mchitale@ventanamicro.com> (raw) > > | In-Reply-To: <20250404144859.112313-1-mchitale@ventanamicro.com> > > | > > | Similar to ARM and X86, introduce a new image type which allows u-boot > > | to distinguish between images built for 32-bit vs 64-bit Risc-V CPUs. > > | > > | Signed-off-by: Mayuresh Chitale > > | Reviewed-by: Maxim Moskalets > > | --- > > | boot/image.c | 3 ++- > > | include/image.h | 3 ++- > > | 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > | > > | diff --git a/boot/image.c b/boot/image.c > > | index 139c5bd035a..45299a7dc33 100644 > > | --- a/boot/image.c > > | +++ b/boot/image.c > > | @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@ static const table_entry_t uimage_arch[] = { > > | { IH_ARCH_ARC, "arc", "ARC", }, > > | { IH_ARCH_X86_64, "x86_64", "AMD x86_64", }, > > | { IH_ARCH_XTENSA, "xtensa", "Xtensa", }, > > | - { IH_ARCH_RISCV, "riscv", "RISC-V", }, > > | + { IH_ARCH_RISCV, "riscv", "RISC-V 32 Bit",}, > > | + { IH_ARCH_RISCV64, "riscv64", "RISC-V 64 Bit",}, > > | { -1, "", "", }, > > | }; > > | > > | diff --git a/include/image.h b/include/image.h > > | index 07912606f33..411bfcd0877 100644 > > | --- a/include/image.h > > | +++ b/include/image.h > > | @@ -138,7 +138,8 @@ enum { > > | IH_ARCH_ARC, /* Synopsys DesignWare ARC */ > > | IH_ARCH_X86_64, /* AMD x86_64, Intel and Via */ > > | IH_ARCH_XTENSA, /* Xtensa */ > > | - IH_ARCH_RISCV, /* RISC-V */ > > | + IH_ARCH_RISCV, /* RISC-V 32 bit*/ > > | + IH_ARCH_RISCV64, /* RISC-V 64 bit*/ > > | > > | IH_ARCH_COUNT, > > | }; > > | -- > > | 2.43.0 > > | > > since it is changing the existing "riscv" image type to be the 32-bit > > image and requiring the new entry for 64-bit. My CI job uses the system > > mkimage to create the image that U-Boot is loading, so it doesn't know > > about the new define etc. Maybe it's not considered a problem if a new > > U-Boot cannot boot an old image, but the comment above the enum reads: > > |/* > > | * CPU Architecture Codes (supported by Linux) > > | * > > | * The following are exposed to uImage header. > > | * New IDs *MUST* be appended at the end of the list and *NEVER* > > | * inserted for backward compatibility. > > | */ > > The overwhelming majority of existing supported boards in U-Boot are > > 64-bit platforms, and the 64-bit platforms are the ones that have been > > supported for longer, so my thought would be that the compatibility of > > 64-bit platforms should be prioritised over 32-bit? Or even add explicit > > 32-bit and 64-bit entries and the existing one is a catch-all for > > compatibility reasons? > > > > Hopefully my lack of bisection isn't causing me to blame something > > incorrect, but I'll go try to replicate now :) > > Ugh. No, this is a problem that needs to be fixed and I'm sorry I missed > it during reviews. We need to keep the list compatible. Hi Conor, Tom, I am so sorry! I did not catch the compatibility issue as well. How do you think we should proceed from here? Maybe revert the whole patchset first? And then send a fix up patch after? Best regards, Leo > > -- > Tom