Hi Andy, On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Andy Shevchenko >> <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Andy Shevchenko >>>> <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Sure. Reword it as "Allow toolchains that are pre-configured to build >>>>>> 32-bit codes to compile 64-bit U-Boot"? >>>>> >>>>> Hmm... The flag you are adding does enforce or allow? >>>>> So, if -m64 will still allow to compile 32-bit code, then it's >>>>> allowing, otherwise it's enforcing. >>>>> Or I miss something? >>>> >>>> -m64 will only be passed to compiler when building source files that >>>> are part of 64-bit U-Boot. For 32-bit U-Boot, it is still -m32. >>> >>> Yes, what I'm trying to understand is >>> 1. U-Boot is compiled _either_ 64-bit, _or_ 32-bit binary -- correct? >> >> 64-bit U-Boot image is a combination of 32-bit U-Boot (SPL) plus >> 64-bit U-Boot (proper). For the U-Boot proper, it has be compiled with >> 64-bit and currently -m64 is missing, primary due to the toolchain we >> previously used has implicitly -m64 configured. > > Okay, thanks for patience and explanation. > > Can you somehow (partially) inject this into initial subject + commit message?
Yes, will do in v2. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot