On Mon, 29 May 2017 03:50:47 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2017 04:30:50 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> RISC-V has both 32-bit and 64-bit base ISAs, but they are very similar.
>>>> Like some other platforms, we'd like to share one arch directory between
>>>> the two of them.
>>>
>>> I think we mainly do the others for backwards-compatibility with ancient
>>> build scripts, and we don't need that here. Instead, you could add one more
>>> line to the 'SUBARCH:=' statement that interprets the uname output.
>>
>> I don't think that does the same thing. The desired effect of this diff is:
>>
>> * "uname -m" when running on a RISC-V machine returns either riscv32 or
>> riscv64, as that's what tools like autoconf expect when trying to find
>> tuples.
>>
>> * I can cross compile for riscv32 and riscv64. That's currently controlled by
>> a Kconfig setting, but ARCH=riscv32 vs ARCH=riscv64 controlls what defconfig
>> sets.
>>
>> * I can natively compile for riscv32 and riscv64. That uses the same Kconfig
>> setting, and the same ARCH=riscv32 vs ARCH=riscv64 switch for defconfig.
>
> Right, but my point is that a new architecture should not rely on 'ARCH='
> to pick the defconfig, we only do that on a couple of architectures for
> backwards compatibility with old scripts.
>
>> Neither of the two Kconfig issues is a big deal, but we de need "uname -m" to
>> return "riscv64" or "riscv32" not "riscv". I think the only way to do that is
>> to set SRCARCH, but I'd be happy to change it if there's a better way. I think
>> if I just do this
>>
>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>> index 0606f28..4adc609 100644
>> --- a/Makefile
>> +++ b/Makefile
>> @@ -232,7 +232,8 @@ SUBARCH := $(shell uname -m | sed -e s/i.86/x86/ -e s/x86_64/x86/ \
>> -e s/arm.*/arm/ -e s/sa110/arm/ \
>> -e s/s390x/s390/ -e s/parisc64/parisc/ \
>> -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/ -e s/mips.*/mips/ \
>> - -e s/sh[234].*/sh/ -e s/aarch64.*/arm64/ )
>> + -e s/sh[234].*/sh/ -e s/aarch64.*/arm64/ \
>> + -e s/riscv.*/riscv/ )
>>
>> # Cross compiling and selecting different set of gcc/bin-utils
>> # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> @@ -269,14 +270,6 @@ ifeq ($(ARCH),x86_64)
>> SRCARCH := x86
>> endif
>>
>> -# Additional ARCH settings for RISC-V
>> -ifeq ($(ARCH),riscv32)
>> - SRCARCH := riscv
>> -endif
>> -ifeq ($(ARCH),riscv64)
>> - SRCARCH := riscv
>> -endif
>> -
>> # Additional ARCH settings for sparc
>> ifeq ($(ARCH),sparc32)
>> SRCARCH := sparc
>>
>> then I'll end up with "uname -m" as "riscv" -- I haven't tried it, but that's
>> why we ended up with this diff in the first place.
>
> Do you mean the "uname -m" output comes from "${SRCARCH}" at
> the time of the kernel build? That would be easy enough to change
> by simply hardcoding it depending on CONFIG_64BIT.
OK, I didn't know about COMPAT_UTS_MACHINE. That's a much better solution,
I'll use that.
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 09:56:33PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2017 03:50:47 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2017 04:30:50 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> RISC-V has both 32-bit and 64-bit base ISAs, but they are very similar.
> >>>> Like some other platforms, we'd like to share one arch directory between
> >>>> the two of them.
> >>>
> >>> I think we mainly do the others for backwards-compatibility with ancient
> >>> build scripts, and we don't need that here. Instead, you could add one more
> >>> line to the 'SUBARCH:=' statement that interprets the uname output.
> >>
> >> I don't think that does the same thing. The desired effect of this diff is:
> >>
> >> * "uname -m" when running on a RISC-V machine returns either riscv32 or
> >> riscv64, as that's what tools like autoconf expect when trying to find
> >> tuples.
> >>
> >> * I can cross compile for riscv32 and riscv64. That's currently controlled by
> >> a Kconfig setting, but ARCH=riscv32 vs ARCH=riscv64 controlls what defconfig
> >> sets.
> >>
> >> * I can natively compile for riscv32 and riscv64. That uses the same Kconfig
> >> setting, and the same ARCH=riscv32 vs ARCH=riscv64 switch for defconfig.
> >
> > Right, but my point is that a new architecture should not rely on 'ARCH='
> > to pick the defconfig, we only do that on a couple of architectures for
> > backwards compatibility with old scripts.
> >
> >> Neither of the two Kconfig issues is a big deal, but we de need "uname -m" to
> >> return "riscv64" or "riscv32" not "riscv". I think the only way to do that is
> >> to set SRCARCH, but I'd be happy to change it if there's a better way. I think
> >> if I just do this
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> >> index 0606f28..4adc609 100644
> >> --- a/Makefile
> >> +++ b/Makefile
> >> @@ -232,7 +232,8 @@ SUBARCH := $(shell uname -m | sed -e s/i.86/x86/ -e s/x86_64/x86/ \
> >> -e s/arm.*/arm/ -e s/sa110/arm/ \
> >> -e s/s390x/s390/ -e s/parisc64/parisc/ \
> >> -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/ -e s/mips.*/mips/ \
> >> - -e s/sh[234].*/sh/ -e s/aarch64.*/arm64/ )
> >> + -e s/sh[234].*/sh/ -e s/aarch64.*/arm64/ \
> >> + -e s/riscv.*/riscv/ )
> >>
> >> # Cross compiling and selecting different set of gcc/bin-utils
> >> # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> @@ -269,14 +270,6 @@ ifeq ($(ARCH),x86_64)
> >> SRCARCH := x86
> >> endif
> >>
> >> -# Additional ARCH settings for RISC-V
> >> -ifeq ($(ARCH),riscv32)
> >> - SRCARCH := riscv
> >> -endif
> >> -ifeq ($(ARCH),riscv64)
> >> - SRCARCH := riscv
> >> -endif
> >> -
> >> # Additional ARCH settings for sparc
> >> ifeq ($(ARCH),sparc32)
> >> SRCARCH := sparc
> >>
> >> then I'll end up with "uname -m" as "riscv" -- I haven't tried it, but that's
> >> why we ended up with this diff in the first place.
> >
> > Do you mean the "uname -m" output comes from "${SRCARCH}" at
> > the time of the kernel build? That would be easy enough to change
> > by simply hardcoding it depending on CONFIG_64BIT.
>
> OK, I didn't know about COMPAT_UTS_MACHINE. That's a much better solution,
> I'll use that.
Hello Palmer,
I suppose the commit:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-linux/commit/8c826930d2a19ecd4f1036f10a380dc4fddd0da5
aims to address this, but it appears to be incomplete. It lacks
the first fragment of the patch above, i.e. the conversion from
the "uname -m" output (i.e. "riscv{64,32}") to the canonical
arch string (i.e. "riscv"). As a result, a native build (which
normally doesn't explicitly pass ARCH=riscv to make and therefore
relies on the output of "uname -m") would fail.
Regards,
Karsten
--
Gem. Par. 28 Abs. 4 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung
sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der
Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.
On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 10:39:04 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 09:56:33PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 03:50:47 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 23 May 2017 04:30:50 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>> RISC-V has both 32-bit and 64-bit base ISAs, but they are very similar.
>> >>>> Like some other platforms, we'd like to share one arch directory between
>> >>>> the two of them.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think we mainly do the others for backwards-compatibility with ancient
>> >>> build scripts, and we don't need that here. Instead, you could add one more
>> >>> line to the 'SUBARCH:=' statement that interprets the uname output.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think that does the same thing. The desired effect of this diff is:
>> >>
>> >> * "uname -m" when running on a RISC-V machine returns either riscv32 or
>> >> riscv64, as that's what tools like autoconf expect when trying to find
>> >> tuples.
>> >>
>> >> * I can cross compile for riscv32 and riscv64. That's currently controlled by
>> >> a Kconfig setting, but ARCH=riscv32 vs ARCH=riscv64 controlls what defconfig
>> >> sets.
>> >>
>> >> * I can natively compile for riscv32 and riscv64. That uses the same Kconfig
>> >> setting, and the same ARCH=riscv32 vs ARCH=riscv64 switch for defconfig.
>> >
>> > Right, but my point is that a new architecture should not rely on 'ARCH='
>> > to pick the defconfig, we only do that on a couple of architectures for
>> > backwards compatibility with old scripts.
>> >
>> >> Neither of the two Kconfig issues is a big deal, but we de need "uname -m" to
>> >> return "riscv64" or "riscv32" not "riscv". I think the only way to do that is
>> >> to set SRCARCH, but I'd be happy to change it if there's a better way. I think
>> >> if I just do this
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>> >> index 0606f28..4adc609 100644
>> >> --- a/Makefile
>> >> +++ b/Makefile
>> >> @@ -232,7 +232,8 @@ SUBARCH := $(shell uname -m | sed -e s/i.86/x86/ -e s/x86_64/x86/ \
>> >> -e s/arm.*/arm/ -e s/sa110/arm/ \
>> >> -e s/s390x/s390/ -e s/parisc64/parisc/ \
>> >> -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/ -e s/mips.*/mips/ \
>> >> - -e s/sh[234].*/sh/ -e s/aarch64.*/arm64/ )
>> >> + -e s/sh[234].*/sh/ -e s/aarch64.*/arm64/ \
>> >> + -e s/riscv.*/riscv/ )
>> >>
>> >> # Cross compiling and selecting different set of gcc/bin-utils
>> >> # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> @@ -269,14 +270,6 @@ ifeq ($(ARCH),x86_64)
>> >> SRCARCH := x86
>> >> endif
>> >>
>> >> -# Additional ARCH settings for RISC-V
>> >> -ifeq ($(ARCH),riscv32)
>> >> - SRCARCH := riscv
>> >> -endif
>> >> -ifeq ($(ARCH),riscv64)
>> >> - SRCARCH := riscv
>> >> -endif
>> >> -
>> >> # Additional ARCH settings for sparc
>> >> ifeq ($(ARCH),sparc32)
>> >> SRCARCH := sparc
>> >>
>> >> then I'll end up with "uname -m" as "riscv" -- I haven't tried it, but that's
>> >> why we ended up with this diff in the first place.
>> >
>> > Do you mean the "uname -m" output comes from "${SRCARCH}" at
>> > the time of the kernel build? That would be easy enough to change
>> > by simply hardcoding it depending on CONFIG_64BIT.
>>
>> OK, I didn't know about COMPAT_UTS_MACHINE. That's a much better solution,
>> I'll use that.
>
> Hello Palmer,
>
> I suppose the commit:
>
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-linux/commit/8c826930d2a19ecd4f1036f10a380dc4fddd0da5
>
> aims to address this, but it appears to be incomplete. It lacks
> the first fragment of the patch above, i.e. the conversion from
> the "uname -m" output (i.e. "riscv{64,32}") to the canonical
> arch string (i.e. "riscv"). As a result, a native build (which
> normally doesn't explicitly pass ARCH=riscv to make and therefore
> relies on the output of "uname -m") would fail.
Sorry about that, I dropped the commit. I'm in the middle of bisecting to find
a regression, so the patch might now show up for a bit, but it'll be fixed.