Hi Simon, On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 02:22, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 13:18, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 08:24:23AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Some functions are passing addresses instead of pointers to the > > > efi_add_memory_map() function. This confusion is understandable since > > > the function arguments indicate an address. > > > > > > Make a note of the 8 places where there are problems, which would break > > > usage in sandbox tests. > > > > > > Future work will resolve these problems. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > Please just resolve these rather than introducing a patch to then fix > > them later. This is something that should have been fixup'd before > > posting. Thanks. > > That was deliberate, as I wanted people to see the problems. It will > save discussion on later patches where the problems are fixed, if we > can agree that these are actual problems. If people are happy to add > review tags to the later patches then I'm happy to redo it.
I am pretty sure Heinrich has repeated this in the past. Why do we have to sprinkle around map_sysmem/unmap sysmem for sandbox? Polluting the entire u-boot to support a special platform is less than ideal. Why can't sandbox limit this internally and do whatever mappings it needs when it receives an address? Thanks /Ilias > > Regards, > Simon
