On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:31:59PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 10:08, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 05:33:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > I would ignore arm32 entirely and make things depend on ARM64 rather
> > than ARM within the series here.
>
> So are you saying I should remove the last part of the commit message
> ("Note that it does not seem to be possible to use this approach with
> arm,
> so this is left alone"), or something else?You should make sure that Kconfig entries depend on ARM64 not ARM and then commit messages should talk about arm64 or AArch64. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
