Hi Tom, On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 19:14, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 05:38:16PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 13:10, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:42:24AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > We don't need to manually add the PE header, since binutils has support > > > > for this now. Remove it to simplify the file. > > > > > > > > Set the link-target to efi-app-aarch64 so that binutils knows what to > > > > do. Add rules to pick up the arm64 files. > > > > > > > > Make some updates to the link-script for arm64, so this all works: > > > > > > > > - Pass .hash .eh_frame and .reloc sections through to objcopy > > > > - Put RELA pieces into a single section > > > > - Put linker lists into .data > > > > - Embed the dtb > > > > > > > > Note that it does not seem to be possible to use this approach with arm, > > > > so this is left alone. > > > > Thanks for looking at all this stuff. > > You're welcome. > > > > Did you mean x86 in this last comment? I'm not sure about the rest, > > > either way, so I'll leave it to others to comment on that. > > > > No, I mean 32-bit ARM. For reasons I don't understand, it seems the > > toolchain doesn't support PE on 32-bit ARM. > > Ah, OK. Were other parts of this series really laying the groundwork for > EFI_APP with 32bit arm?
Not intentionally, since I was trying to get the series as small as possible and still actually get something that boots. I'm not sure that anyone will want a 32-bit ARM EFI-app. I would much rather that we had it for completeness, but it seems that the binutils people were not that interested in it. What do you think? Regards, Simon
