Hi Alex, On 4 October 2016 at 09:50, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > > Am 04.10.2016 um 17:37 schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > Hi Alex, > > On 3 October 2016 at 21:15, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > 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.
What is tricky about that? > > Maybe we can trick around that with bincopy -O binary though. Hmm :). Yes I think it is possible, and desirable. But for now I've gone with using an external patch. I may come back to this another time. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot