Hi Tom, On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 19:14, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 06:52:33PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 at 21:14, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 08:22:11PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Sandbox is its own architecture, but sometimes we want to mimic the host > > > > architecture, e.g. when running an EFI app not built by U-Boot. > > > > > > > > Add a -N/--native flag which tells sandbox to reflect the architecture > > > > of the host. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > (no changes since v8) > > > > > > I believe Heinrich asked that you invert the logic here and add a flag > > > for when you need the unexpected behavior. > > > > Yes, but that is not correct, unfortunately. The expected behaviour is > > for CI to use the same filename for its efi apps, no matter what host > > architecture it is happens to be running on. > > > > The use case that Heinrich mentions seems to be broken on x86_64 now, > > as I mentioned on the other thread, perhaps due to a recently > > introduced bug in UEFI or QEMU. Just to be clear, this is not a > > problem with sandbox. I suspect Heinrich will figure that out at some > > point and then I will be able to try it too. I would also like to run > > it on sandbox. > > > > I hope to get an ARM machine running CI eventually, but I need to get > > my lab running first. > > I talked with Heinrich about this in private and while neither of us > understand why you want this behavior, we'll stop objecting to it.
OK, good. Heinrich mentioned that the RISC-V server did not work, for some reason. But eventually we might have one of those. I know from my fiddling with 32-bit rpi that even *running* sandbox on ARM will be a challenge, let alone passing tests, but we'll see. We should encourage ARM/Linux to set up an ARM runner at some point. Regards, Simon
