Hi Alex, On 11 June 2018 at 23:42, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 24 May 2018 at 06:32, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> With sandbox these values depend on the host system. Let's assume that it >>>> is x86_64 for now. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v4: None >>>> Changes in v3: None >>>> Changes in v2: None >>>> >>>> include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>>> b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>>> index 8d5feb3ac77..97d6baab4be 100644 >>>> --- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>>> +++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h >>>> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ >>>> #elif defined(CONFIG_ARM) >>>> #define BOOTENV_EFI_PXE_ARCH "0xa" >>>> #define BOOTENV_EFI_PXE_VCI "PXEClient:Arch:00010:UNDI:003000" >>>> -#elif defined(CONFIG_X86) >>>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >>> >>> Why not >>> >>> #elif defined(CONFIG_X86) || (defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) && >>> defined(__x86_64__)) >>> >>> and similar for other architectures? That way we should be quite safe in >>> determining our target architecture, no? >> >> I suspect that would work, although I think it would need to be done >> centrally, rather than ad-hoc in files that need to know the sandbox >> host architecture. >> >> We are not currently aware of the sandbox host architecture, but I >> wonder whether we are going to have to teach the build system about >> it. Does U-Boot sandbox actually run on ARM platforms? I have not >> tried it. > > I haven't tried it either, but IMHO it's a bug if it doesn't run :).
Well until someone tests it, it doesn't work. Any changes made to attempt to make it work without testing are just conjecture, IMO. > > I also don't quite understand why CONFIG_SANDBOX contradicts CONFIG_X86. > They probably should both be set for an x86 host system. That way you > wouldn't have to double-check these conditionals all over the code base. The point here is that they are separate U-Boot architectures. What I'm getting at is that in U-Boot we have the concept of a host architecture and we can use HOSTCC. But with sandbox this takes on a lot more meaning, since the host architecture is actually the one on which sandbox is running. So you could say that we have ARM sandbox or x86_64 sandbox. At present we have not such concept. I can see that it could be useful as things get more complicated. I suppose whoever tries U-Boot sandbox out on ARM first will hit there problems and send a patch? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
