[PATCH v7 6/7] test: efi: boot: Set up an image suitable for EFI testing

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:31:10AM +0200, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 11:51, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 09:24:33AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > Create a new disk for use with tests, which contains the new 'testapp'
> > > EFI app specifically intended for testing the EFI loader.
> > >
> > > Attach it to the USB device, since most testing is currently done with
> > > mmc.
> > >
> > > Initially this image will be used to test the EFI bootmeth.
> > >
> > > Fix a stale comment in prep_mmc_bootdev() while we are here.
> > >
> > > For now this uses sudo and a compressed fallback file, like all the
> > > other bootstd tests. Once this series is in, the patch which moves
> > > this to use user-space tools will be cleaned up and re-submitted.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Here is the patch to avoid sudo and CI fallback:
> > >
> > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/
> > > 20240802093322.15240-1-richard at nod.at/
> > >
> > > (no changes since v1)
> > >
> > >  arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts           |   2 +-
> > >  test/boot/bootdev.c                 |  18 +++++++++-
> > >  test/boot/bootflow.c                |   2 +-
> > >  test/py/tests/bootstd/flash1.img.xz | Bin 0 -> 5016 bytes
> >
> > This I think best illustrates the problem with "BOOTSBOX.EFI". This
> > image will work for CI up until I can figure out how to get access to
> > free arm64 servers to run some tests on and then it will fail.
> 
> I don't believe so. Why do you think that?

Because it includes the BOOTSBOX.EFI x86 binary file, and executes it?
Or did I miss where we update the contents to include that file as we
just built it (and so why have it included?) ?

> BTW it would be good to get CI running on arm. I believe Linaro might
> have some servers. I keep thinking of getting an Ampere device but so
> far have resisted as it is UEFI with closed firmware...

The problem is more, for GitLab, getting anyone to maintain and provide
a runner and then for Azure, waiting for Microsoft to include some in
the free tier. I think for the former, at one point I was thinking about
using one of Oracle's always-free tier ones and for a small enough
subset of things (like a host tools and a sandbox run) it might be fine.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20241021/53b17585/attachment.sig>