[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 07/16] efi: sandbox: Add distroboot support

[Alexander Graf]

On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 24 May 2018 at 06:32, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> With sandbox these values depend on the host system. Let's assume that it
>>> is x86_64 for now.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v4: None
>>> Changes in v3: None
>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>
>>>  include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>> index 8d5feb3ac77..97d6baab4be 100644
>>> --- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>> +++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@
>>>  #elif defined(CONFIG_ARM)
>>>  #define BOOTENV_EFI_PXE_ARCH "0xa"
>>>  #define BOOTENV_EFI_PXE_VCI "PXEClient:Arch:00010:UNDI:003000"
>>> -#elif defined(CONFIG_X86)
>>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX)
>>
>> Why not
>>
>> #elif defined(CONFIG_X86) || (defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) &&
>> defined(__x86_64__))
>>
>> and similar for other architectures? That way we should be quite safe in
>> determining our target architecture, no?
> 
> I suspect that would work, although I think it would need to be done
> centrally, rather than ad-hoc in files that need to know the sandbox
> host architecture.
> 
> We are not currently aware of the sandbox host architecture, but I
> wonder whether we are going to have to teach the build system about
> it. Does U-Boot sandbox actually run on ARM platforms? I have not
> tried it.

I haven't tried it either, but IMHO it's a bug if it doesn't run :).

I also don't quite understand why CONFIG_SANDBOX contradicts CONFIG_X86.
They probably should both be set for an x86 host system. That way you
wouldn't have to double-check these conditionals all over the code base.


Alex