Hi Tom, On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 18:43, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 17:03, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 03:40:07PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 14:29, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 10:11:20AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > - Depend on CONFIG_EFI_APP instead > > > > > - Drop change to u-boot-elf rule > > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM' > > > > > - Drop the word 'Sadly' > > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM' > > > > > - Add new patch to rename VENDOR_EFI to ARCH_EFI > > > > > - Update to use ARCH_EFI instead of VENDOR_EFI > > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM' > > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM' > > > > > - Rework the commit message to clarify the relationship to > > > > > link-scripts > > > > > - Expand commit message to explains that EFI_APP skips relocation > > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM' > > > > > - Document the x86 field better and add a comment for ARM too > > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM' > > > > > - Put the EFI-app case first in setup_mon_len(), for clarity > > > > > - Use ARCH_EFI instead of VENDOR_EFI > > > > > - Merge the linker-script rules into Kconfig in this patch > > > > > - Drop patch 'Select the EFI linker script for the app' > > > > > > > > There's things that were mentioned for v1 that aren't in this list, did > > > > you miss them or disagree with them? > > > > > > > > > > The only one I think I didn't do was ' Drop exception code'. I'm not > > > actually using / enabling an SPL symbol so I think you have the wrong > > > end of the stick. > > > > No, you missed my comments about copyright, and tidying up the > > compile/link flags for EFI_APP, and the exceptions.o / exception_level.o > > thing too. I forget if there was anything else. > > Oh yes, I sorry all of those but somehow lost the memory when I was > testing my work-in-progress. Sorry about that. > > The LDS thing is a bit of yak shaving but shouldn't be too bad.
Now I remember...I added it to the Kconfig, but in a different patch, then left the EFI_LDS in because I got confused with sandbox. But it can go. > > For SPL, I'm still stuck as to what you are getting at, but I'll try > redoing the commit message and see if that helps. Regards, Simon
