On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 11:36:47PM +0800, Leo Liang wrote: > 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: <[email protected]> (raw) > > > | In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > > | > > > | 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 <[email protected]> > > > | Reviewed-by: Maxim Moskalets <[email protected]> > > > | --- > > > | 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?
Can we just do a patch to fix things as they stand now? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
