[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 10/13] efi: sandbox: Add a simple 'bootefi test' command

[Simon Glass]

HI Alex,

On 13 June 2018 at 04:08, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>
>
> On 12.06.18 23:57, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 12 June 2018 at 08:11, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12.06.18 15:48, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>
>>>> On 12 June 2018 at 02:28, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12.06.18 07:26, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>> This jumps to test code which can call directly into the EFI support. It
>>>>>> does not need a separate image so it is easy to write tests with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This test can be executed without causing problems to the run-time
>>>>>> environemnt (e.g. U-Boot does not need to reboot afterwards).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For now the test just outputs a message. To try it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ./sandbox/u-boot -c "bootefi test"
>>>>>> U-Boot 2017.09-00204-g696c9855fe (Sep 17 2017 - 16:43:53 -0600)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRAM:  128 MiB
>>>>>> MMC:
>>>>>> Using default environment
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In:    serial
>>>>>> Out:   serial
>>>>>> Err:   serial
>>>>>> SCSI:  Net:   No ethernet found.
>>>>>> IDE:   Bus 0: not available
>>>>>> Found 0 disks
>>>>>> WARNING: booting without device tree
>>>>>> Hello, world!
>>>>>> Test passed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> From Heinrich's comments it sounded like it wouldn't be hard to make the
>>>>> selftest work. That sounds more appealing to me to be honest :).
>>>>
>>>> Yes and in fact my hope was to run the tests automatically as part of
>>>> 'make tests'
>>>>
>>>> But rather than expanding the scope of this series, can we get this in
>>>> first? Having EFI support in sandbox is a substantial step forward.
>>>
>>> I agree that it would be amazing to have it in, I just want to make sure
>>> we're walking into the right direction. And what I want to have is an
>>> easy way to execute EFI binaries from user space :).
>>
>> That's a different thing entirely from the purpose of my series. My
>> series is designed to allow EFI applications to be *linked* with
>> sandbox and run just like normal C code, with a full unified stack
>> trace, etc.
>>
>> I think this is a very useful feature separate from running EFI
>> binaries in user space.
>
> I understand that and I agree that it's useful. I just don't want to
> drive us into a corner where it blocks the other use case.

I don't thing it does. Am I missing something?

I take it you'd like to boot grub on sandbox. I imagine that will take
more work, but should be possible.

The primary purpose from my side is to enable easier testing.

Regards,
Simon