On 14.06.18 21:02, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 14 June 2018 at 12:22, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> With efi_loader we do not control payload applications, so we can not >> teach them about the difference between virtual and physical addresses. >> >> Instead, let's just always map host virtual addresses in the efi memory >> map. That way we can be sure that all memory allocation functions always >> return consumable pointers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >> >> --- >> >> v1 -> v2: >> >> - only compile efi_add_known_memory if efi_loader is enabled >> --- >> arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > NAK. > > You should not point sandbox pointers into the EFI tables. I know it > looks like a clever shortcut, but it is not correct. It will mess up > logging and debugging, since those pointers bear no easily accessible > relationship to U-Boot address. > > Please start from my v7 patch. I'm happy to help do this correctly. > But, again, I think it should come after we have basic sandbox EFI > support applied.
I don't want to play ping pong with you here. NAK on your approach until I see it properly executing selftest. So either we drive this forward or we don't. Your choice. Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot