Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:36:16 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Paul Kocialkowski <contact@paulk.fr>
Cc:     Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation
 mode variants"
Message-ID: <20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com>
References: <20180709200956.31158-1-labbott@redhat.com>
 <20180710090125.GA28924@arm.com>
 <fcd8d97b6714d787297f1b362558e7a68855a1da.camel@paulk.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fcd8d97b6714d787297f1b362558e7a68855a1da.camel@paulk.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 10:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Thanks, Laura.
> > 
> > I'll take this as a fix, and add a comment to the Makefile to justify
> > why we need the linux target.
> 
> So this comes down to either breaking fedora/debian toolchains (that
> don't support elf emulation mode) or breaking bare-metal toolchains
> (that don't support linux emulation mode).
> 
> Since Linux is a bare-metal project that does not technically require
> the linux target (who said using "Linux" for all things is confusing?),
> I think it should aim for the elf target in the long term.
> 
> But well, breaking Linux build in common distros isn't good either, so I
> guess it makes sense to revert this while distros toolchains are being
> fixed. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
> 
> What do you think?

Yes, we need to revert the change since it's a regression otherwise. I think
the best course of action here would be to find a way that we can either
tell the linker that it doesn't need the missing linker scripts because
we're providing our own, or find a way to pass different LD flags depending
on whether or not we have a linux toolchain.

For now, I've pushed the revert to for-next/fixes.

Will