[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 5/8] arm: efi: Add a hello world test program

[Simon Glass]

Hi Alex,

On 19 October 2016 at 01:07, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>
>
> On 18/10/2016 22:37, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 4 October 2016 at 09:50, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 04.10.2016 um 17:37 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
>>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> On 3 October 2016 at 21:15, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 03.10.2016 um 23:50 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 September 2016 at 15:28, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:36:19AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25.09.16 23:27, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It is useful to have a basic sanity check for EFI loader support. Add a
>>>
>>>
>>> 'bootefi hello' command which loads HelloWord.efi and runs it under U-Boot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> arch/arm/lib/HelloWorld32.efi  | Bin 0 -> 11712 bytes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC U-Boot as a whole is GPL licensed, which means that any binaries
>>>
>>>
>>> shipped inside would also need to be GPL compatibly licensed which again
>>>
>>>
>>> means that the source code (and build instructions?) for this .efi file
>>>
>>>
>>> would need to be part of the tree, no?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'm not super comfortable with this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think we should drop these binary patches? I could always put
>>>
>>> the binaries somewhere along with instructions on how to get them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that's the best option, yes. You can always just add a url to the
>>>
>>> readme to point people into the right direction.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK. One problem is that we cannot write a test for it unless we
>>> actually run an EFI application.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you could always provide a binary disk image that you run in qemu as
>>> test case. That one doesn't have to be gpl compliant thn because it's not
>>> derived work :).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do think it is useful to be able to test the platform though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't disagree, but I would argue that for the average u-boot user it
>>>
>>> brings no additional value ;). And people like you who know how to enable a
>>>
>>> new architecture probably also know how to get a file into their target's
>>>
>>> memory.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if we can build our own hello world application? I think I
>>> did it once. But there is EFI library code that we would need to bring
>>> in (perhaps a small amount).
>>>
>>>
>>> We could. The main problem is the PE header.
>>
>> What is tricky about that?
>
> Our compiler usually generates elf files, no PE binaries. So we'd have
> to assemble the PE header ourselves - or rely on a second compiler.

I think I'm going to go with the first option which seems easy enough.

Regards,
Simon