[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/16] efi: sandbox: Add relocation constants

[Simon Glass]

Hi Alex,

On 11 June 2018 at 23:44, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>
>
> On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 24 May 2018 at 06:34, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are
>>>> for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within
>>>> sandbox anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v4: None
>>>> Changes in v3: None
>>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>>
>>>>  lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c
>>>> index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c
>>>> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI efi_invalid_parameter(void);
>>>>  #include <asm/elf.h>
>>>>  #define R_RELATIVE   R_386_RELATIVE
>>>>  #define R_MASK               0xffULL
>>>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX)
>>>
>>> Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on
>>> defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX)
>>
>> Yes, understood, same comment as on the other patch. We can always add
>> support for ARM, etc. when people can try it and test it.
>
> What would keep people from trying it?

Time and inclination, most likely.

Regards,
Simon