[PATCH v4 04/25] efi_loader: Add comments where incorrect addresses are used

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Hi Simon,

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 02:22, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 13:18, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 08:24:23AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > Some functions are passing addresses instead of pointers to the
> > > efi_add_memory_map() function. This confusion is understandable since
> > > the function arguments indicate an address.
> > >
> > > Make a note of the 8 places where there are problems, which would break
> > > usage in sandbox tests.
> > >
> > > Future work will resolve these problems.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >
> > Please just resolve these rather than introducing a patch to then fix
> > them later. This is something that should have been fixup'd before
> > posting. Thanks.
>
> That was deliberate, as I wanted people to see the problems. It will
> save discussion on later patches where the problems are fixed, if we
> can agree that these are actual problems. If people are happy to add
> review tags to the later patches then I'm happy to redo it.

I am pretty sure Heinrich has repeated this in the past. Why do we
have to sprinkle around map_sysmem/unmap sysmem for sandbox?
Polluting the entire u-boot to support a special platform is less than
ideal. Why can't sandbox limit this internally and do whatever
mappings it needs when it receives an address?

Thanks
/Ilias
>
> Regards,
> Simon