From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Glass Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:12:10 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 10/13] efi: sandbox: Add a simple 'bootefi test' command In-Reply-To: References: <20180612052646.109214-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20180612052646.109214-11-sjg@chromium.org> <473fd2b8-65a8-6aa6-25fb-5860526f0b30@suse.de> 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 HI Alex, On 13 June 2018 at 04:08, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 12.06.18 23:57, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 12 June 2018 at 08:11, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12.06.18 15:48, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> On 12 June 2018 at 02:28, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12.06.18 07:26, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>> This jumps to test code which can call directly into the EFI support. It >>>>>> does not need a separate image so it is easy to write tests with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> This test can be executed without causing problems to the run-time >>>>>> environemnt (e.g. U-Boot does not need to reboot afterwards). >>>>>> >>>>>> For now the test just outputs a message. To try it: >>>>>> >>>>>> ./sandbox/u-boot -c "bootefi test" >>>>>> U-Boot 2017.09-00204-g696c9855fe (Sep 17 2017 - 16:43:53 -0600) >>>>>> >>>>>> DRAM: 128 MiB >>>>>> MMC: >>>>>> Using default environment >>>>>> >>>>>> In: serial >>>>>> Out: serial >>>>>> Err: serial >>>>>> SCSI: Net: No ethernet found. >>>>>> IDE: Bus 0: not available >>>>>> Found 0 disks >>>>>> WARNING: booting without device tree >>>>>> Hello, world! >>>>>> Test passed >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass >>>>> >>>>> From Heinrich's comments it sounded like it wouldn't be hard to make the >>>>> selftest work. That sounds more appealing to me to be honest :). >>>> >>>> Yes and in fact my hope was to run the tests automatically as part of >>>> 'make tests' >>>> >>>> But rather than expanding the scope of this series, can we get this in >>>> first? Having EFI support in sandbox is a substantial step forward. >>> >>> I agree that it would be amazing to have it in, I just want to make sure >>> we're walking into the right direction. And what I want to have is an >>> easy way to execute EFI binaries from user space :). >> >> That's a different thing entirely from the purpose of my series. My >> series is designed to allow EFI applications to be *linked* with >> sandbox and run just like normal C code, with a full unified stack >> trace, etc. >> >> I think this is a very useful feature separate from running EFI >> binaries in user space. > > I understand that and I agree that it's useful. I just don't want to > drive us into a corner where it blocks the other use case. I don't thing it does. Am I missing something? I take it you'd like to boot grub on sandbox. I imagine that will take more work, but should be possible. The primary purpose from my side is to enable easier testing. Regards, Simon