Booting fails on the sandbox

[Simon Glass]

Hi Heinrich,

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 at 14:08, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 12/16/23 19:45, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 at 07:50, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Simon,
> >>
> >> I have built sandbox_defconfig with PREBOOT='host bind 0 ../sct.img'
> >>
> >> On the image I have an ESP with file EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI.
> >>
> >> I would expect the sandbox to boot from the ESP.
> >>
> >> But when starting the sandbox is does not boot. Instead it shows a menu
> >> with some Fedora related entry:
> >>
> >> Fedora-Workstation-armhfp-31-1.9 Boot Options.
> >> 1:      Fedora-Workstation-armhfp-31-1.9 (5.3.7-301.fc31.armv7hl)
> >>
> >> This makes absolutely no sense on an x86_64 system. Could you, please,
> >> fix sandbox_defconfig to boot according to distroboot.
> >
> > What sort of 'fix' are you thinking of? You should be able to discover
> > all the options with 'bootflow scan' and then use 'bootflow select' or
> > 'bootflow menu' to choose which one you want.
> >
> > The Fedora thing is used for testing and development.
>
> I want to autoboot the sandbox without manual intervention. This
> requires a sane state.

Well, stop doing that :-)

Really, sandbox is for development and CI testing. It is not designed
to boot anything automatically.

>
> If that Fedora thingy is only needed in CI, can't we put it into a
> config segment that only used by the CI scripts and have the sandbox in
> a generally usable state? Or can we let the Python tests add the
> otherwise not needed bootflow?

Yes, we could. We have some extra mmc devices which are manually
enabled in tests.

But it is handy to be able to try out a distro without doing anything
special. I suppose we could add a sandbox command to enable an mmc
device in test.dts

If you have ideas / patches that is fine...it's just that I do want to
be able to use sandbox for basic development and trying things out.

Regards,
Simon