On 12.06.18 15:48, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 12 June 2018 at 02:13, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >> On 12.06.18 07:26, Simon Glass wrote: >>> With sandbox these values depend on the host system. Let's assume that it >>> is x86_64 for now. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v5: None >>> Changes in v4: None >>> Changes in v3: None >>> Changes in v2: None >>> >>> include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>> b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>> index d672e8ebe6..8d11f52da0 100644 >>> --- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>> +++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ >>> #elif defined(CONFIG_ARM) >>> #define BOOTENV_EFI_PXE_ARCH "0xa" >>> #define BOOTENV_EFI_PXE_VCI "PXEClient:Arch:00010:UNDI:003000" >>> -#elif defined(CONFIG_X86) >>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >> >> I was serious when I said I wanted to have a defined(__x86_64__) guard. >> Otherwise we'll expose incorrect information. And I doubt that anyone >> will catch it when porting sandbox to non-x86, because it doesn't error out. > > OK I can do a warning but I cannot use the current guard, otherwise it > prevents sandbox even building on ARM hosts!
Just change defined(CONFIG_X86) into defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) then? Maybe the same for the other archs? Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
