From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Clark Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:16:29 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 00/23] efi_loader implement missing functions In-Reply-To: <20170829125755.4unqrcv6zbgc4jvz@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20170826225110.7381-1-xypron.glpk@gmx.de> <8dd266b9-9595-e8b7-5b92-5b37b019de49@gmx.de> <0d42bc48-9e8f-ab5e-8e15-c6fbc7829f00@suse.de> <20170829125755.4unqrcv6zbgc4jvz@bivouac.eciton.net> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 02:26:48PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> > > > I would add command >> > > > bootefi selftest.efi >> > > > to run the tests and provide the python wrapper code to add it to the >> > > > test suite. >> > > >> > > I think that's a great idea, yes. >> > I wonder how far we are from running UEFI tests (either the official >> > ones, or I seem to remember hearing about some other test suite which >> > didn't require UEFI shell)? >> >> Let's ask Leif, Ard and Dong. >> >> The official test suite definitely needs the UEFI Shell. Is the suite >> publicly available by now? > > In binary form, you can access it already from the links on > http://uefi.org/testtools > > Yes, 2.5 is latest release. No this is not a restriction ... the SCT > releases have been lagging the specification releases a fair bit. > > The 2.5a package contains AARCH64, IA32 and X64 support (not ARM). > Not that it couldn't contain ARM, it just hasn't been packaged. > >> > That seems more useful long term than re-inventing comprehensive UEFI >> > test suite. (Also, beyond just running shim/fallback/grub, I don't >> > really have time to invent new tests for the stack of efi_loader >> > patches I have.) >> >> Yes and no - it depends on the availability of the official suite :/. > > UEFI SCT is not yet open source/free software. Obviously, this is > something Linaro has been lobbying for since day one of our > involvement. There used to be little understanding for this, but that > attitude has shifted substantially. So, if/until UEFI SCT is not an option, what about: https://01.org/linux-uefi-validation (thx to pjones for pointing that out to me) BR, -R > I will let Dong fill in on what the current status actually get the > code into the open is. > > / > Leif