> Am 03.10.2016 um 23:50 schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > Hi, > >> On 27 September 2016 at 15:28, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:36:19AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 25.09.16 23:27, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> It is useful to have a basic sanity check for EFI loader support. Add a >>>> 'bootefi hello' command which loads HelloWord.efi and runs it under U-Boot. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v2: None >>>> >>>> arch/arm/lib/HelloWorld32.efi | Bin 0 -> 11712 bytes >>> >>> IIRC U-Boot as a whole is GPL licensed, which means that any binaries >>> shipped inside would also need to be GPL compatibly licensed which again >>> means that the source code (and build instructions?) for this .efi file >>> would need to be part of the tree, no? >> >> Yeah, I'm not super comfortable with this. > > Do you think we should drop these binary patches? I could always put > the binaries somewhere along with instructions on how to get them.
I think that's the best option, yes. You can always just add a url to the readme to point people into the right direction. > > I do think it is useful to be able to test the platform though. I don't disagree, but I would argue that for the average u-boot user it brings no additional value ;). And people like you who know how to enable a new architecture probably also know how to get a file into their target's memory. Alex > > Regards, > Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
