[BUG] sandbox: './u-boot -l ' fails

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

Am 28. September 2020 06:24:38 MESZ schrieb Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
>Hi Heinrich,
>
>On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 13:48, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>wrote:
>>
>> Hello Simon,
>>
>> when I try to run ./u-boot -l the sandbox stalls. Shouldn't it run
>out
>> of the box?
>>
>> $ ./u-boot -l -d arch/sandbox/dts/sandbox.dtb
>
>For the record you should be able to use -D to get the same effect as
>your -d above.
>
>>
>> U-Boot 2020.10-rc4-00018-g21a10244f9-dirty (Sep 19 2020 - 19:55:39
>+0200)
>>
>> Model: sandbox
>> DRAM:  128 MiB
>>
>> Warning: host_lo MAC addresses don't match:
>> Address in ROM is               26:4b:ca:6c:98:f4
>> Address in environment is       00:00:11:22:33:44
>>
>> Warning: host_virbr0 MAC addresses don't match:
>> Address in ROM is               ee:3e:c9:ce:1f:9c
>> Address in environment is       00:00:11:22:33:45
>>
>> Warning: host_docker0 MAC addresses don't match:
>> Address in ROM is               c2:85:07:7b:9a:18
>> Address in environment is       00:00:11:22:33:46
>> WDT:   Not found!
>> MMC:
>>
>> No output after this point.
>>
>> The problem also exists with U-Boot v2020.07, v2019.10, v2018.11.
>>
>> CONFIG_SANDBOX_SDL=y
>>
>> SDL_InitSubSystem() never returns. It is looping somewhere in
>U-Boot's
>> __serial_getc(). I wonder how it gets there without returning from
>the
>> function.
>>
>> I compiled SDL2.cpp from
>> https://gist.github.com/miguelmartin75/6946310#file-sdl2-cpp-L18
>> with
>>
>> g++ SDL2.cpp -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/include/SDL2 -lSDL2 -lGL -o test
>>
>> and it runs fine showing an X11 windows with red background.
>>
>> So there seems to be no general problem with the SDL2 library.
>
>I hit this myself on another computer and it turned out to be that SDL
>defined getc(), as does U-Boot, and things get confused. At least I
>think it is getc.
>
>I hacked around with changing the name of getc (I think it was getc)
>in U-Boot and the problem went away.

Should we include a patched SDL2 with U-Boot for static linking?

>
>Regards,
>Simon