> Am 04.10.2016 um 17:37 schrieb Simon Glass <[email protected]>: > > Hi Alex, > >> On 3 October 2016 at 21:15, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Am 03.10.2016 um 23:50 schrieb Simon Glass <[email protected]>: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 27 September 2016 at 15:28, Tom Rini <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> --- >> >> >> 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. > > OK. One problem is that we cannot write a test for it unless we > actually run an EFI application.
Well, you could always provide a binary disk image that you run in qemu as test case. That one doesn't have to be gpl compliant thn because it's not derived work :). > >> >> >> 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. > > I wonder if we can build our own hello world application? I think I > did it once. But there is EFI library code that we would need to bring > in (perhaps a small amount). We could. The main problem is the PE header. Maybe we can trick around that with bincopy -O binary though. Hmm :). Alex > > Regards, > Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
