Hi Rob, On 21 September 2017 at 08:22, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 20 September 2017 at 08:09, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14.09.17 00:05, Rob Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Similar to a "real" UEFI implementation, the bootmgr looks at the >>>>> BootOrder and BootXXXX variables to try to find an EFI payload to load >>>>> and boot. This is added as a sub-command of bootefi. >>>>> >>>>> The idea is that the distro bootcmd would first try loading a payload >>>>> via the bootmgr, and then if that fails (ie. first boot or corrupted >>>>> EFI variables) it would fallback to loading bootaa64.efi. (Which >>>>> would then load fallback.efi which would look for \EFI\*\boot.csv and >>>>> populate BootOrder and BootXXXX based on what it found.) >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> Would it make sense to convert the bootmgr into a genuine EFI application >>>> now that we have Heinrich's test framework available? >>>> >>> >>> I had considered that, but then decided it was nice to be able to use >>> printf()/malloc()/etc.. plus easier to gdb/debug.. >>> >>> Maybe at some point it would be worth trying to fixup edk2 build so >>> some things like this and HII/unicode protocols and maybe a few other >>> things could be built as standalone .efi drivers and loaded by u-boot. >>> (Might make sense by the time someone wants a full blown HII "bios >>> setup menu" ;-)) >> >> Another advantage of the current approach used by this series is that >> we can test it with sandbox. With a separate EFI application we would >> lose that ability. >> > > jfwiw, I do actually have Shell.efi very nearly loading in sandbox.. > it crashes part-way through startup (shortly after reading "ShellOpt" > variable) and I haven't had a chance to debug further.. but I suspect > in some form or another having VA != "PA" in sandbox is biting us. > > Anyways, getting a bit off topic, but separate .efi in sandbox doesn't > seem like it should be completely out of the question for sandbox.. > and it would make sandbox *way* more useful for EFI testing, since > this is really half of the point of efi..
Sounds very promising! The goal for sandbox is to test all U-Boot code where it is practical to do so. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
