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

[Andre Przywara]

Hi,

On 03/11/16 09:10, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 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 at 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.

Yeah, I remember this ;-)

>> 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 :).

I was thinking the same. Even if we eventually scratch that idea this
patch shouldn't hurt, and makes U-Boot more versatile.

Cheers,
Andre.