> Am 14.06.2018 um 17:12 schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > HI Alex, > >> On 13 June 2018 at 04:08, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >>> On 12.06.18 23:57, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>>> On 12 June 2018 at 08:11, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 12.06.18 15:48, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>> >>>>>> On 12 June 2018 at 02:28, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12.06.18 07:26, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>> This jumps to test code which can call directly into the EFI support. It >>>>>>> does not need a separate image so it is easy to write tests with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This test can be executed without causing problems to the run-time >>>>>>> environemnt (e.g. U-Boot does not need to reboot afterwards). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For now the test just outputs a message. To try it: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ./sandbox/u-boot -c "bootefi test" >>>>>>> U-Boot 2017.09-00204-g696c9855fe (Sep 17 2017 - 16:43:53 -0600) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DRAM: 128 MiB >>>>>>> MMC: >>>>>>> Using default environment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In: serial >>>>>>> Out: serial >>>>>>> Err: serial >>>>>>> SCSI: Net: No ethernet found. >>>>>>> IDE: Bus 0: not available >>>>>>> Found 0 disks >>>>>>> WARNING: booting without device tree >>>>>>> Hello, world! >>>>>>> Test passed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> From Heinrich's comments it sounded like it wouldn't be hard to make the >>>>>> selftest work. That sounds more appealing to me to be honest :). >>>>> >>>>> Yes and in fact my hope was to run the tests automatically as part of >>>>> 'make tests' >>>>> >>>>> But rather than expanding the scope of this series, can we get this in >>>>> first? Having EFI support in sandbox is a substantial step forward. >>>> >>>> I agree that it would be amazing to have it in, I just want to make sure >>>> we're walking into the right direction. And what I want to have is an >>>> easy way to execute EFI binaries from user space :). >>> >>> That's a different thing entirely from the purpose of my series. My >>> series is designed to allow EFI applications to be *linked* with >>> sandbox and run just like normal C code, with a full unified stack >>> trace, etc. >>> >>> I think this is a very useful feature separate from running EFI >>> binaries in user space. >> >> I understand that and I agree that it's useful. I just don't want to >> drive us into a corner where it blocks the other use case. > > I don't thing it does. Am I missing something?
Anything exposed via efi interfaces has to contain host virtual adresses, as binary payloads are not aware of the virt/phys memory offset. > I take it you'd like to boot grub on sandbox. I imagine that will take > more work, but should be possible. I tried, it almost works. I guess the aarch64 version could even succeed. > > The primary purpose from my side is to enable easier testing. I agree on that part. So let's make sure both use cases get enabled! :) Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
