Hi Heinrich, On Mon, 30 Sept 2024 at 17:23, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26.09.24 23:59, Simon Glass wrote: > > Sandbox is not a real architecture, but within U-Boot it is real enough. > > We should not need to pretend it is x86 or ARM anywhere in the code. > > > > Also we want to be able to locate the sandbox app using a single > > filename, 'bootsbox.efi', to avoid needing tests to produce different > > files on each host architecture. > > > > Drop the confusing use of host architecture and just let sandbox be > > sandbox. > > As I already wrote in > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/ > this patch should not be merged. > > bootsbx.efi does not exist in the UEFI specification.
If that is of concern I can get it added. Let me know. > > Without this patch I can test that shim work and grub are correctly > loaded from a distro image. This patch makes the sandbox misbehave. Why don't you do that with QEMU? If we want sandbox to do this, I could add a way for sandbox to select its architecture. But this patch is correct, sorry. It is basically a revert of your patch: 3a0654ecd0d efi_loader: correctly identify binary name Let me know if you would like a selection mechanism and I'll see what I can do. Regards, Simon
