[PATCH 07/32] scripts: Update build-efi to support arm64

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 05:05:06AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
> 
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 12:05, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Am 3. Februar 2025 18:42:00 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
> > >Provide a -A flag to select ARM instead of x86. For now, only the app
> > >is supported and only for 64-bit ARM.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >---
> > >
> > > scripts/build-efi.py | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/scripts/build-efi.py b/scripts/build-efi.py
> > >index 3a1bf180ade..1ba37e86e88 100755
> > >--- a/scripts/build-efi.py
> > >+++ b/scripts/build-efi.py
> > >@@ -48,6 +48,8 @@ def parse_args():
> > >         epilog='Script for running U-Boot as an EFI app/payload')
> > >     parser.add_argument('-a', '--app', action='store_true',
> > >                         help='Package up the app')
> > >+    parser.add_argument('-A', '--arm', action='store_true',
> >
> > Why have a flag per EFI architecture?
> >
> > Please add a parameterized flag instead.
> >
> > --arch i386
> > --arch x64
> > --arch arm
> > --arch aarch64
> > --arch riscv64
> >
> > and get rid of the bitness parameter.
> 
> Tom has rejected this for the tree. I'll apply it to my tree and then
> deal with this comments with another patch. But I'm thinking a
> contrib/ directory would be better.

Please stop posting things that are only ever for your downstream fork.

-- 
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/20250215/3eb779b2/attachment.sig>