GNU bug report logs -
#70892
[PATCH 0/6] Add visionfive2 support.
Previous Next
Full log
Message #26 received at 70892 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 2024-05-12, Zheng Junjie wrote:
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm b/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm
> index cfe8046731..1d52e961fd 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm
...
> @@ -1343,6 +1344,36 @@ (define-public u-boot-sifive-unmatched
> (modify-inputs (package-inputs base)
> (append opensbi-generic))))))
>
> +(define-public u-boot-starfive-visionfive2
> + (let ((opensbi (package
> + (inherit opensbi-generic)
> + (arguments
> + (substitute-keyword-arguments
> + (package-arguments opensbi-generic)
> + ((#:make-flags flags)
> + `(cons* "FW_TEXT_START=0x40000000"
> + "FW_OPTIONS=0"
> + ,flags))))))
> + (base (make-u-boot-package "starfive_visionfive2" "riscv64-linux-gnu")))
I would not want to block this patch on this, but...
Curious about the advantages and disadvantages of making this an
on-the-fly opensbi package variant... as so far I think most u-boot
packages just pull in inputs of other packages
(e.g. arm-trusted-firmware-*) rather than modifying them as part of the
u-boot-* package.
If this seems to be a good approach overall, maybe we should switch more
packages to use this approach ... or if there are significant downsides,
perhaps this patch series should just create another opensbi variant and
add it to inputs or whatever?
Thoughts?
That aside, looks good to me. :)
Thanks!
live well,
vagrant
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 1 day ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.