Hi Alex, On 11 June 2018 at 23:44, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 24 May 2018 at 06:34, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are >>>> for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within >>>> sandbox anyway. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v4: None >>>> Changes in v3: None >>>> Changes in v2: None >>>> >>>> lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>>> index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>>> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI >>>> efi_invalid_parameter(void); >>>> #include <asm/elf.h> >>>> #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE >>>> #define R_MASK 0xffULL >>>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >>> >>> Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on >>> defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >> >> Yes, understood, same comment as on the other patch. We can always add >> support for ARM, etc. when people can try it and test it. > > What would keep people from trying it?
Time and inclination, most likely. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
