[OE-core] [PATCH] Revert "kernel-arch.bbclass: add arm64 support to U-Boot architecture map"

[Koen Kooi]

> Op 19 feb. 2015, om 04:34 heeft Nathan Rossi <nathan.rossi at xilinx.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> This reverts commit 0b891265716c414ade29d587fc1a3c4ea7beadbe.
> 
> U-Boot does support AArch64, this however was only added to newer
> versions of U-Boot and at the time of this original commit the U-Boot in
> OE-Core did not support the 'arm64' architecture. OE-Core now has a
> newer version of U-Boot for the mkimage recipe and thus supports the
> 'arm64' architecture.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Rossi <nathan.rossi at xilinx.com>
> ---
> meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> index bbcfa15..6a6ad91 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ def map_uboot_arch(a, d):
> 
>     if   re.match('p(pc|owerpc)(|64)', a): return 'ppc'
>     elif re.match('i.86$', a): return 'x86'
> -    elif re.match('arm64$', a): return 'arm'
>     return a

I just debugged a boot failure to this revert. The machine in question is using u-boot 2013.04 + vendor patches and can’t be replaced at this time.  I get that OE doesn’t care about vendor trees using obsolete versions, but this case is extra annoying because a few lines later this bbclass does:

     export UBOOT_ARCH = "${@map_uboot_arch(d.getVar('ARCH', True), d)}"

instead of:

     export UBOOT_ARCH ?= "${@map_uboot_arch(d.getVar('ARCH', True), d)}"

So now I’m forced to overlay kernel-arch.bbclass with the revert reverted and hope I don’t get any machines with a recent u-boot. Having said all that, modern uboots should default to zImage for arm32 and Image for aarch64 and have CONFIG_SUPPORT_RAW_INITRD enabled so mkimage isn;t needed anymore.

So, opinions on weakly assigning UBOOT_ARCH?

--
Koen Kooi
Builds and Baselines | Release Manager
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs