From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6927512860892332032 X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9b03:: with SMTP id u3mr1348131lji.216.1612947381748; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:56:21 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a2e:a58c:: with SMTP id m12ls242503ljp.2.gmail; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:56:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgbRXHTCfRjUFdWwrdRv5Zs//LqyyAQz3mX/Q94FZ/G+T0bSMD2hp8cJJ/aCM94s3ywbEz X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0f4:: with SMTP id h20mr1324462ljl.11.1612947380626; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:56:20 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1612947380; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=MutTKWoxMl/3IqMHwwQaStVwqqzsJO51mQTMcOxFb38Ou23lXGhAAHHKiMMC19bDsC XPolP9aWAPvuUjRs1X5kVxr6bijx2oBW9SqJ+wC1V9NUBnKzPXWO5rN6Bu04YnPLUoIr iiYAzxrvpb3Sj/Q9hkQBp0VgmikOKX7CrEV+VusfG3yIvnHIT36SvJ+CldTW2/PYEmgI riTkBRcHGS4R+UixM8PQTKMMbu0w8krwMgb2XSjLVKg9GerE4Dxd8vNJ+31wRUOmGIpm LRbqBHe6cNPjVhRs7lYpjIBhghQfMShJns/Awu+nPtUVB/CzWf4oGJi7HHIhzCwbRY6U 5RiQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:to:from:date; bh=CQY+Iy4CgYFUb41e8ODzWfpamF7CFuvTDGNHsSDDPDI=; b=S3bWaaLQaDASxtgbSRky37BiSKxeIzT9fYkvRF8flNwkQfE2yb3IBdMELgF4A7J+mM kwgPzDygCmKLiLAdTYxY1U8Qru/igiectzI1fktqBjwGE2N3sciCe+OjRLbG9oerM7qF 7gGpDtRAGJrxmeyc94grJIfyQrnBg+gyQP93IeYQ+JLs6Xm8NUNom0CGgmDMHp/sl1cp nYBkw847qd03jscrrSdWQLcq+RaPutQYFZf4g5eVHhxEXQz6D7wQqWQmZK6szQe7M3GB dh3+br/wLvsVnJz3diBePnnRq1ivXZxGBf5Jc05H0Hfm6TDmOSDrtxwmD3aWKe1uqdmG r4Aw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from shymkent.ilbers.de (shymkent.ilbers.de. [85.214.156.166]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c6si70318ljk.2.2021.02.10.00.56.20 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.156.166; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.m.ilbers.de (host-80-81-17-52.static.customer.m-online.net [80.81.17.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by shymkent.ilbers.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id 11A8uGJN011564 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:56:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:56:16 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: "isar-users@googlegroups.com" Subject: Re: Support for generating bootx64.efi when distro arch is i386 Message-ID: <20210210085616.GU20742@yssyq.m.ilbers.de> Mail-Followup-To: "isar-users@googlegroups.com" References: <86fa58d19dba43d2950b99d6d25067a3@universal-robots.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86fa58d19dba43d2950b99d6d25067a3@universal-robots.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on shymkent.ilbers.de X-TUID: f5HMfXtv3OLC Hello Daniel, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 08:45:06PM +0000, Daniel Machon wrote: > Would you consider a patch series that adds support for separating the DISTRO_ARCH from the generation of the grub image? > > We have a use case where target userland is i386, but firmware only supports loading of 64bit EFI executables. > Currently the DISTRO_ARCH is also used to generate the grub image - if distro arch is i386, then grub image is bootia32.efi. > > We fixed this by introducing a new variable used (in bootimg-efi-isar.py) to separately decide the grub image. IIRC, we've already had a similar use case (mixing i386 and amd64 userland), so this one could be interesting as well. In any case, I'm looking forward to the patches and discussion. Why do you want to have i386 userland on amd64? With kind regards, Baurzhan.