Hi Bin, On 13 August 2017 at 19:26, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi Bin, >> >> On 6 August 2017 at 03:13, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Bin, >>>> >>>> On 3 August 2017 at 18:17, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Bin, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1 August 2017 at 17:33, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Convert SANDBOX_BITS_PER_LONG to Kconfig and assign it a correct >>>>>>> number depending on which host we are going to build and run. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> arch/sandbox/Kconfig | 5 +++++ >>>>>>> board/sandbox/README.sandbox | 7 +++---- >>>>>>> scripts/config_whitelist.txt | 1 - >>>>>>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it OK to build 64-bit sandbox on a 32-bit machine? Does that actually >>>>>> work? >>>>>> >>>>>> If then I think we need a 3-way setting like: >>>>>> >>>>>> - 32-bit >>>>>> - 64-bit >>>>>> - native (i.e. whatever the host is) >>>>> >>>>> That means cross-compiling sandbox. So far this is not working. I will >>>>> take a look. >>>> >>>> Or perhaps we just require it to use the bit size of the host? Does >>>> compiling 64-bit U-Boot on a 32-bit machine actually work? >>>> >>> >>> I have not looked into that further but I suspect there is more work >>> than the bit size of the host, for example, linking 64-bit vs. 32-bit >>> libraries? >> >> But does it compile 64-bit sandbox OK on a 32-bit machine? I would >> have thought it would complain. >> > > No. Compiling 64-bit sandbox never worked on a 32-bit machine. So far > sandbox build only supports: > > 1). build from a 32-bit host and run from a 32-bit host > 2). build from a 64-bit host and run from a 64-bit host (current > default setting) > >> I'm not really asking for this feature, it's just that I don't >> understand how your patch works, and don't necessarily want to lose >> the ability to build a 32-bit sandbox. It is to some extent a helpful >> build/unit test for 32-bit boards which we still have many of. >> > > This patch does not introduce any functional changes. It just converts > SANDBOX_BITS_PER_LONG to Kconfig so that this can be changed from > defconfigs or 'make menuconfig' to make it more user friendly if we > are building (a 32-bit) sandbox on a 32-bit host. Ideally we should > add such cross-build functionality to sandbox build.
Then I think this patch is fine. Regards, Simon Applied to u-boot-dm, thanks! _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot