[PATCH v3 2/3] buildman: differentiate between riscv32, riscv64

[Simon Glass]

Hi Heinrich,

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 03:56, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/22 03:10, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 20:21, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> riscv32 needs a different toolchain than riscv64
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
> >> ---
> >> v3:
> >>          new patch
> >> ---
> >>   tools/buildman/boards.py | 11 +++++++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/buildman/boards.py b/tools/buildman/boards.py
> >> index 8a0971aa40..cdc4d9ffd2 100644
> >> --- a/tools/buildman/boards.py
> >> +++ b/tools/buildman/boards.py
> >> @@ -263,6 +263,17 @@ class KconfigScanner:
> >>           if params['arch'] == 'arm' and params['cpu'] == 'armv8':
> >>               params['arch'] = 'aarch64'
> >>
> >> +        # fix-up for riscv
> >> +        if params['arch'] == 'riscv':
> >> +            try:
> >> +                value = self._conf.syms.get('ARCH_RV32I').str_value
> >> +            except:
> >> +                value = ''
> >> +            if value == 'y':
> >> +                params['arch'] = 'riscv32'
> >> +            else:
> >> +                params['arch'] = 'riscv64'
> >> +
> >>           return params
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.37.2
> >>
> >
> > Should we instead do what ARM does?
>
> My patch does exactly the same for RISC-V that was done previously for ARM:
> It sets the correct value of arch in dependence of the bitness of the
> architecture.

Sort of. Can we use the 'cpu' for this, insteading of reading a config symbol?

Otherwise, how will this work when the boards.cfg file is already there?

>
> Currently in our Docker image we have an alias entry for 'riscv' in file
> .buildman. Don't force users to create such an alias value when running
> buildman locally.

I didn't know I needed to...

Regards,
Simon