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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Alex,

On 11 June 2018 at 23:42, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>
>
> 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 :).

Well until someone tests it, it doesn't work. Any changes made to
attempt to make it work without testing are just conjecture, IMO.

>
> 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.

The point here is that they are separate U-Boot architectures.

What I'm getting at is that in U-Boot we have the concept of a host
architecture and we can use HOSTCC. But with sandbox this takes on a
lot more meaning, since the host architecture is actually the one on
which sandbox is running.

So you could say that we have ARM sandbox or x86_64 sandbox. At
present we have not such concept. I can see that it could be useful as
things get more complicated.

I suppose whoever tries U-Boot sandbox out on ARM first will hit there
problems and send a patch?

Regards,
Simon