Hi Ramon, On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Ramon Fried <rfried....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/24/19 3:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > > Hi Ramon, > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 8:22 PM Ramon Fried <rfried....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 6/24/19 8:03 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:03 PM Anup Patel <anup.pa...@wdc.com> wrote: > >> > >> We should depend on __LITTLE_ENDIAN pre-defined compiler macro for > >> little-endian system instead of U-Boot specific CONFIG_SYS_LITTLE_ENDIAN > >> macro. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.pa...@wdc.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/macb.c | 7 ++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > >> > >> Hi. > >> I don't like this approach, each platform should configure it's > >> endianess, this is stated in README in root folder. > >> relying on a specific GCC preprocessor extension is limiting us only to > >> use GCC. > >> The RISCV issue with MACB can be easily resolved by defining the > >> CONFIG_SYS_LITTLE_ENDIAN config. > > OK, but a system wide CONFIG_SYS_LITTLE_ENDIAN may bring side effects > > to other drivers, as not all devices are using the same endianness > > even in the same system. Maybe we can do something by parsing some > > property in device tree? > > > > Regards, > > Bin > > Hey Bin > > I grep'ed for all instances of CONFIG_SYS_LITTLE_ENDIAN and I don't see any > place > where something might brake. can you elaborate ?
I mean this system wide CONFIG_SYS_LITTLE_ENDIAN is easy to break since it cannot represent all devices, although I did not check all instances currently in U-Boot. Maybe it's OK for now for the SiFive board. But this option is not better than the pure compiler flag either. So I was proposing using some properties in DT. Does that help? Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
