Hi Alex, On 3 October 2016 at 21:15, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > > Am 03.10.2016 um 23:50 schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > Hi, > > On 27 September 2016 at 15:28, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:36:19AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > On 25.09.16 23:27, Simon Glass wrote: > > It is useful to have a basic sanity check for EFI loader support. Add a > > 'bootefi hello' command which loads HelloWord.efi and runs it under U-Boot. > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > --- > > > Changes in v2: None > > > arch/arm/lib/HelloWorld32.efi | Bin 0 -> 11712 bytes > > > IIRC U-Boot as a whole is GPL licensed, which means that any binaries > > shipped inside would also need to be GPL compatibly licensed which again > > means that the source code (and build instructions?) for this .efi file > > would need to be part of the tree, no? > > > Yeah, I'm not super comfortable with this. > > > Do you think we should drop these binary patches? I could always put > the binaries somewhere along with instructions on how to get them. > > > I think that's the best option, yes. You can always just add a url to the > readme to point people into the right direction.
OK. One problem is that we cannot write a test for it unless we actually run an EFI application. > > > I do think it is useful to be able to test the platform though. > > > I don't disagree, but I would argue that for the average u-boot user it > brings no additional value ;). And people like you who know how to enable a > new architecture probably also know how to get a file into their target's > memory. I wonder if we can build our own hello world application? I think I did it once. But there is EFI library code that we would need to bring in (perhaps a small amount). Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot