[U-Boot] [PATCH] travis: Use kernel.org pre-built toolchain for riscv

[Rick Chen]

Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> 於 2018年9月6日 週四 上午9:43寫道：
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:56 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 1:36 PM Rick Chen <rickchen36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  > From: Tom Rini [mailto:trini at konsulko.com]
> > >  > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:24 AM
> > >  > To: Bin Meng
> > >  > Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Rick Jian-Zhi Chen(陳建志)
> > >  > Subject: Re: [PATCH] travis: Use kernel.org pre-built toolchain for riscv
> > >  >
> > >  > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 05:50:39PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > >  > > Hi Tom,
> > >  > >
> > >  > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 9:12 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > This updates travis configuration to use kernel.org pre-built
> > >  > > > toolchain for riscv.
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> > >  > > > ---
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > >  .travis.yml | 5 ++---
> > >  > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >  > > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Since this is travis-ci changes, can we take this for v2018.09? I've
> > >  > > verified that it works well for current riscv build on travis-ci.org.
> > >  >
> > >  > Seeing as things are still working before this change I would like
> > > to see an ack
> > >  > from the custodian, thanks!
> > >  >
> > >  > --
> > >  > Tom
> > >
> > > Hi Bin
> > >
> > > I think lt is a positive way to use kernel.org pre-built toolchain for
> > > code coverage.
> > > And very agree with that.
> > >
> > > But there is a problem, it maybe encounter in the future.
> > > If I or someone try to add a private csr which the public toolchain
> > > may not recognize it.
> >
> > I assume what you said "private" csr means "vendor-specific" csr that
> > is not defined by the risc-v ISA?
> >
> > > How shall it be overcomed ? Do you have any ideas ?
> >
> > I believe this shall be implemented properly by the toolchain itself.
> > Or we hardcode the instruction for such "private" csr if there is no
> > good solution from the toolchain side. Having a custom toolchain seems
> > not a good idea.

Hi Bin

Agree with you, maybe I shall consider to isolate the vendor-specific
code with CONFIG_XXX.

>
> I did not see a confirmative response on whether this patch is OK. Can
> you please comment, and if no issue I hope this can catch up the train
> of upcoming release :)
>

Hi Tom

I think it is OK to pull this change into the master.
Hope everything goes fine :)

Rick

> Regards,
> Bin