[RFC 1/1] tools: Dockerfile for armv7

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 13:19, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 09:14:13PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > On 10/28/22 21:04, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 12:03:30PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > On 10/16/22 09:43, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > > Provide an armv7 docker environment to build and test the sandbox.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt<heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > I have been discussing with Simon, if we can test sandbox_defconfig
> > > > > build on arm in a docker container. This RFC is just a small step on
> > > > > the path to it.
> > > >
> > > > We also need a separate requirements.txt with pygit2==1.6.1 due the
> > > > different version of libgit in the armhf version of Ubuntu Jammy.
> > >
> > > So, what are the general best practices to have a Dockerfile that can be
> > > / is used for generating multiple platforms worth of images? We should
> > > aim for a single Dockerfile that can be used for x86-64, armv7 and
> > > aarch64.
> >
> > As we execute bash commands in the Dockerfile we could use if/fi and
> > case/esac to work around differences between architectures.
>
> For unavoidable differences, yes, OK.
>
> > Except on amd64 we only want to execute the sandbox. So there is no need to
> > build GRUB, QEMU, and swtmp/libtmps.
>
> Why? There's no reason one shouldn't be able to run the whole of CI on
> aarch64 hosts, unless there's QEMU bugs, or similar issues. The first
> use might be just to do sandbox runs but I don't want to limit things
> without strong reason ($X doesn't work, would be a good reason to
> limit).

I'm not sure where this is going, but how do we build sandbox on ARM?
Do we need to use the cross compiler? I'd love to see this happen.

Regards,
Simon