If we can agree in principle of this:
https://github.com/markVnl/rpms-uboot-tools/compare/master...centosisms
If will see what I can do.
Grtz Mark
(Sorry Pablo, accidentally answered to you instead to the list)
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Afzender: Pablo Sebastián Grecopablo@fliagreco.com.ar Verstuurd: Vrijdag 20 September 2019 15:14 Aan: Conversations around CentOS on ARM hardware arm-dev@centos.org; Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl Onderwerp: Re: [Arm-dev] Centos specific patch for uboot images
Mark, you're absolutely right, and I have a local copy of that same idea.
WRT your patches, I have some nitpicks. I think the generated srpm should be the same in both CentOS and Fedora, which could be solved by including "the other one" as a source
If you'd like take on the task of getting this upstreamed to Fedora, you'd be helping me "a lot", if not, just know that it is in my to-do list :-)
Pablo.
El 20/9/19 a las 09:46, Mark Verlinde escribió:
First of all congratulations and thanks for the latest 7.7 release; updated several systems without issues!
As mentioned in an other conversation it is the logical continuation of 7.6-updates nevertheless found some nice surprises in the armhfp and especially aarch64 extras repository's including updated u-boot images
This being said it saddens me to see in the source file of the uboot-tools-2019.07-3 they still carry a Fedora specific patch. While it is not a difficult fix the get centosisms in. Especially since the upstream maintainer (intentionally?) reverted the order of first two distro specific patches. (This makes a clean patch possible without patching the patch.)
I know it is not a encouraged to boot aarch64 on our SBC's, nor is it my objective to promote this. But an easy route I use for over an year is though uboot-uefi boot > grub2. And have to say I like it a lot, with an (serial)monitor attracted you can choose the kernel in grub2; or partion you want to boot (if you happen to feel to be inclined to have a multiboot-environment)
after re-basing to uboot-tools-2019.07-3 ( https://github.com/markVnl/rpms-uboot-tools/compare/centos...el7 https://github.com/markVnl/rpms-uboot-tools/compare/centos...el7 ) these two patches do the job for me:
From 98a2c15275a5fe154cf80344b7538d72ecb00645 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl mailto:mark@havak.nl Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:29:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] uefi use Centos specific path name
uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) create mode 100644 uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch
diff --git a/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch b/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14abac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +From dd6a7a9726e5d79bb053d3ab0a8b0ae273140bce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl mailto:mark@havak.nl +Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 15:28:56 +0100 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] uefi use Centos specific path name
+Signed-off-by: Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl mailto:mark@havak.nl +---
- include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 10 +++++-----
- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
+diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h +index 47e98e14ac..aa4b24d4de 100644 +--- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h ++++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h +@@ -92,9 +92,9 @@
- #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER
- #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
+-#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootaa64.efi" ++#define BOOTEFI_NAME "grubaa64.efi"
- #elif defined(CONFIG_ARM)
+-#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootarm.efi" ++#define BOOTEFI_NAME "grubarm.efi"
- #elif defined(CONFIG_X86_RUN_32BIT)
- #define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootia32.efi"
- #elif defined(CONFIG_X86_RUN_64BIT)
+@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
- "bootefi bootmgr ${fdtcontroladdr};" \
- "fi;" \
- "load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${distro_bootpart} " \
+- "${kernel_addr_r} efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ ++ "${kernel_addr_r} efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \
- "if fdt addr ${fdt_addr_r}; then " \
- "bootefi ${kernel_addr_r} ${fdt_addr_r};" \
- "else " \
+@@ -165,9 +165,9 @@
- "run boot_efi_binary\0" \
- "scan_dev_for_efi=" \
- "if test -e ${devtype} ${devnum}:${distro_bootpart} " \
+- "efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; then " \ ++ "efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; then "\
- "echo Found EFI removable media binary " \
+- "efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ ++ "efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \
- "run scan_dev_for_dtb; " \
- "echo EFI LOAD FAILED: continuing...; " \
- "fi; " \
+-- +2.16.5
El 20/9/19 a las 11:58, Mark Verlinde escribió:
If we can agree in principle of this:
https://github.com/markVnl/rpms-uboot-tools/compare/master...centosisms
Yeap, that is what I had in mind, thanks!!!
If will see what I can do.
Grtz Mark
(Sorry Pablo, accidentally answered to you instead to the list)
Yeap, that happens to me all the time :) Pablo.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Afzender: Pablo Sebastián Grecopablo@fliagreco.com.ar Verstuurd: Vrijdag 20 September 2019 15:14 Aan: Conversations around CentOS on ARM hardware arm-dev@centos.org; Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl Onderwerp: Re: [Arm-dev] Centos specific patch for uboot images
Mark, you're absolutely right, and I have a local copy of that same idea.
WRT your patches, I have some nitpicks. I think the generated srpm should be the same in both CentOS and Fedora, which could be solved by including "the other one" as a source
If you'd like take on the task of getting this upstreamed to Fedora, you'd be helping me "a lot", if not, just know that it is in my to-do list :-)
Pablo.
El 20/9/19 a las 09:46, Mark Verlinde escribió:
First of all congratulations and thanks for the latest 7.7 release; updated several systems without issues!
As mentioned in an other conversation it is the logical continuation of 7.6-updates nevertheless found some nice surprises in the armhfp and especially aarch64 extras repository's including updated u-boot images
This being said it saddens me to see in the source file of the uboot-tools-2019.07-3 they still carry a Fedora specific patch. While it is not a difficult fix the get centosisms in. Especially since the upstream maintainer (intentionally?) reverted the order of first two distro specific patches. (This makes a clean patch possible without patching the patch.)
I know it is not a encouraged to boot aarch64 on our SBC's, nor is it my objective to promote this. But an easy route I use for over an year is though uboot-uefi boot > grub2. And have to say I like it a lot, with an (serial)monitor attracted you can choose the kernel in grub2; or partion you want to boot (if you happen to feel to be inclined to have a multiboot-environment)
after re-basing to uboot-tools-2019.07-3 ( https://github.com/markVnl/rpms-uboot-tools/compare/centos...el7 https://github.com/markVnl/rpms-uboot-tools/compare/centos...el7 ) these two patches do the job for me:
From 98a2c15275a5fe154cf80344b7538d72ecb00645 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl mailto:mark@havak.nl Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:29:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] uefi use Centos specific path name
uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) create mode 100644 uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch
diff --git a/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch b/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14abac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +From dd6a7a9726e5d79bb053d3ab0a8b0ae273140bce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl mailto:mark@havak.nl +Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 15:28:56 +0100 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] uefi use Centos specific path name
+Signed-off-by: Mark Verlinde mark@havak.nl mailto:mark@havak.nl +---
- include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 10 +++++-----
- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
+diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h +index 47e98e14ac..aa4b24d4de 100644 +--- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h ++++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h +@@ -92,9 +92,9 @@
- #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER
- #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
+-#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootaa64.efi" ++#define BOOTEFI_NAME "grubaa64.efi"
- #elif defined(CONFIG_ARM)
+-#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootarm.efi" ++#define BOOTEFI_NAME "grubarm.efi"
- #elif defined(CONFIG_X86_RUN_32BIT)
- #define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootia32.efi"
- #elif defined(CONFIG_X86_RUN_64BIT)
+@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
- "bootefi bootmgr ${fdtcontroladdr};" \
- "fi;" \
- "load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${distro_bootpart} " \
+- "${kernel_addr_r} efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ ++ "${kernel_addr_r} efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \
- "if fdt addr ${fdt_addr_r}; then " \
- "bootefi ${kernel_addr_r} ${fdt_addr_r};" \
- "else " \
+@@ -165,9 +165,9 @@
- "run boot_efi_binary\0" \
- "scan_dev_for_efi=" \
- "if test -e ${devtype} ${devnum}:${distro_bootpart} " \
+- "efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; then " \ ++ "efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; then "\
- "echo Found EFI removable media binary " \
+- "efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ ++ "efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \
- "run scan_dev_for_dtb; " \
- "echo EFI LOAD FAILED: continuing...; " \
- "fi; " \
+-- +2.16.5
Arm-dev mailing list Arm-dev@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev
-
Mark Verlinde -
Pablo Sebastián Greco