GNU bug report logs - #70892
[PATCH 0/6] Add visionfive2 support.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #56 received at 70892 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Zheng Junjie <zhengjunjie <at> iscas.ac.cn>
To: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org>
Cc: 70892 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
Subject: Re: [bug#70892] [PATCH 4/6] gnu: Add u-boot-starfive-visionfive2.
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 01:58:17 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org> writes:

> 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.

As far as I know, the opensbi support in visionfive2 was added later, so
the opensbi configuration needs to be modified, and later other boards
should be able to use the generic version of opensbi.

>
> 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?


The disadvantage of this is that cuirass can't see on-the-fly opensbi,
and if the hidden input takes a long time to compile, it will affect the
compilation time of the package. So I split opensbi-for-visionfive2 in
the v2 patchset.

>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> That aside, looks good to me. :)
>
> Thanks!
>
> live well,
>   vagrant

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.