On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 24 May 2018 at 06:34, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >> On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are >>> for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within >>> sandbox anyway. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v4: None >>> Changes in v3: None >>> Changes in v2: None >>> >>> lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>> index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 >>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI >>> efi_invalid_parameter(void); >>> #include <asm/elf.h> >>> #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE >>> #define R_MASK 0xffULL >>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >> >> Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on >> defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) > > Yes, understood, same comment as on the other patch. We can always add > support for ARM, etc. when people can try it and test it.
What would keep people from trying it? Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
