Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

sysutils/u-boot-bhyve-arm64: Fix after the 2024.01 import
ClosedPublic

Authored by markj on Feb 7 2024, 4:25 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Jul 10, 3:41 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jul 4, 7:25 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Jun 26, 7:35 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 21 2024, 6:26 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 19 2024, 1:14 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 19 2024, 10:01 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 19 2024, 9:07 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 19 2024, 8:58 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Because this config is not yet upstreamed (pending arm64/bhyve/vmm
actually landing in main), we have to maintain our own for the time
being.

Tweak the config to work around two problems which arose after the
latest update:

  • EFI support implies SMBIOS support, which requires that we implement a finalizer, which we don't have. Since SMBIOS support isn't required, just remove it.
  • Don't configure EVENT, as we don't use it, and its configuration implies that we implement a hook that runs immediately before command processing.

Diff Detail

Repository
R11 FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

markj requested review of this revision.Feb 7 2024, 4:25 PM
manu requested changes to this revision.Feb 7 2024, 4:52 PM

You need to set U_BOOT_SLAVE_PORTREVISION_2024.01= 1 in the Makefile too.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Feb 7 2024, 4:52 PM

I suspect this isn't the right approach long-term, but this works in my local testing. This will need U_BOOT_SLAVE_PORTREVISION_2024.01 to be set, but perhaps best to batch that with the patch I have and was trying to test when I encountered this regression?

I suspect this isn't the right approach long-term, but this works in my local testing.

It definitely isn't. Really I'm waiting for arm64/vmm to land in main so that I can commit the userspace bits, then I will work to get this configuration upstreamed. In the meantime I'm happy to fix fallout from updates.

I suspect this isn't the right approach long-term, but this works in my local testing. This will need U_BOOT_SLAVE_PORTREVISION_2024.01 to be set, but perhaps best to batch that with the patch I have and was trying to test when I encountered this regression?

FYI this is https://reviews.freebsd.org/D43785. I don't mind bumping the version again, but it does seem a little silly.

I suspect this isn't the right approach long-term, but this works in my local testing. This will need U_BOOT_SLAVE_PORTREVISION_2024.01 to be set, but perhaps best to batch that with the patch I have and was trying to test when I encountered this regression?

FYI this is https://reviews.freebsd.org/D43785. I don't mind bumping the version again, but it does seem a little silly.

Oh, yes. Would you like to merge the patches and push? If not I'll take care of it now.

I suspect this isn't the right approach long-term, but this works in my local testing. This will need U_BOOT_SLAVE_PORTREVISION_2024.01 to be set, but perhaps best to batch that with the patch I have and was trying to test when I encountered this regression?

FYI this is https://reviews.freebsd.org/D43785. I don't mind bumping the version again, but it does seem a little silly.

Oh, yes. Would you like to merge the patches and push? If not I'll take care of it now.

Feel free to take care of it all, thanks.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 7 2024, 5:21 PM

Would be better to do only one commit yes.