On Fri Aug 16, 2024 at 8:39 AM CEST, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > On 16/08/2024 at 00:27, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > On Thu Aug 15, 2024 at 10:24 PM CEST, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >> Then I guess a 16 MiB unused partition could be added to relevant > >> recipes. Now, which are the relevant recipes ? In other words, which > >> arch/subarch need it ? > > > >> recipes-armhf-efi (= recipes-amd64-efi) > >> recipes-armhf > >> recipes-arm64-efi (= recipes-amd64-efi) > >> recipes-arm64 (= recipes-armhf) > > > > Rockchip makes both 32bit as 64bit ARM SoCs, so `recipes-armhf` is > > relevant. > > If only Rockchip SoCs need the reserved partition and are detected as a > specific subarchitecture by archdetect, new specific recipes for this > subarchitecture could be added.
I used Rockchip as an example as I'm familiar with that AND *afaik* they expect the U-Boot stuff to start at the furthest offset. But when U-Boot is used, every platform uses *some* offset and then needs some space/bytes for the U-Boot binary/bits. If that goes above the 2MB mark, then the current recipes overwrite part of whole of the U-Boot binary ... making the system unbootable. So you could special case Rockchip and only use the 16MB offset for the Operating System partitions and data for Rockchip SoCs. Or you could keep the first 16MB free for all ARM SoCs and then it should work for all ARM SoCs as long as they stay below the 16MB 'mark'. Which AFAIK are all of them. > > I don't know if it's common, but AFAIK you can use U-Boot with EFI, but > > it sounds 'weird' to add it to a recipe with AMD64 in its name... > > Indeed. If some ARM EFI platforms need the reserved partition, then one > of the recipes-arm*-efi symlinks could be replaced with a directory > containing new specific recipes and the other could be changed to point > to it. And the above principle also applies when EFI is being used with U-Boot as it's specific to U-Boot. HTH, Diederik
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
