[PATCH v2 00/29] arm: Support building as an EFI app

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 18:43, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 17:03, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 03:40:07PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 14:29, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 10:11:20AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Depend on CONFIG_EFI_APP instead
> > > > > - Drop change to u-boot-elf rule
> > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM'
> > > > > - Drop the word 'Sadly'
> > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM'
> > > > > - Add new patch to rename VENDOR_EFI to ARCH_EFI
> > > > > - Update to use ARCH_EFI instead of VENDOR_EFI
> > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM'
> > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM'
> > > > > - Rework the commit message to clarify the relationship to link-scripts
> > > > > - Expand commit message to explains that EFI_APP skips relocation
> > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM'
> > > > > - Document the x86 field better and add a comment for ARM too
> > > > > - Mention '64-bit ARM' here, rather than just 'ARM'
> > > > > - Put the EFI-app case first in setup_mon_len(), for clarity
> > > > > - Use ARCH_EFI instead of VENDOR_EFI
> > > > > - Merge the linker-script rules into Kconfig in this patch
> > > > > - Drop patch 'Select the EFI linker script for the app'
> > > >
> > > > There's things that were mentioned for v1 that aren't in this list, did
> > > > you miss them or disagree with them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The only one I think I didn't do was ' Drop exception code'. I'm not
> > > actually using / enabling an SPL symbol so I think you have the wrong
> > > end of the stick.
> >
> > No, you missed my comments about copyright, and tidying up the
> > compile/link flags for EFI_APP, and the exceptions.o / exception_level.o
> > thing too. I forget if there was anything else.
>
> Oh yes, I sorry all of those but somehow lost the memory when I was
> testing my work-in-progress. Sorry about that.
>
> The LDS thing is a bit of yak shaving but shouldn't be too bad.

Now I remember...I added it to the Kconfig, but in a different patch,
then left the EFI_LDS in because I got confused with sandbox. But it
can go.

>
> For SPL, I'm still stuck as to what you are getting at, but I'll try
> redoing the commit message and see if that helps.

Regards,
Simon