Hi Alex,
On 23 June 2018 at 00:57, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
Hi Simon,
Am 23.06.2018 um 06:01 schrieb Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Alex,
On 18 June 2018 at 09:23, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
We currently expose host addresses in the EFI memory map. That can be
bad if we ever want to use sandbox to boot strap a real kernel, because
then the kernel would fetch its memory table from our host virtual address
map. But to make that use case work, we would need to have full control
over the address space the EFI application sees.
So let's expose only U-Boot addresses to the guest until we get to the
point of allocation. EFI's allocation functions are fun - they can take
U-Boot addresses as input values for hints and return host addresses as
allocation results through the same uint64_t * parameter. So we need to
be extra careful on what to pass in when.
With this patch I am successfully able to run the efi selftest suite as
well as grub.efi on aarch64.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de
arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c | 19 -------------------
lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 12 ++++++------
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
Can you please point me to your latest series? I think you have decided to work on this yourself and pick bits from my series that you like.
Believe me, I also picked things that I don't like. But ultimately sandbox is your court while efi_loader is mine. And I'm fairly sure both of us have better things to do than to run in circles.
This I consider unpleasant behaviour for a maintainer, but ultimately I'm more interested in getting things resolved than any procedural issues. Please don't do this to anyone else, though, in the U-Boot community.
I don't see the problem - it's pretty common in the Linux world. You propose something, I counterpropose, we converge, maintainer decides what to pick up.
This is certainly not Linux and I like to think we have a kinder and more supportive environment here. I very seldom call out people on this list for language and behaviour.
Also you are a maintainer, not another contributor.
Anyway, at present I'm not sure what state it is in, so please point me to your latest tree so I can take a look and figure out what has actually changed from my v9 series.
The current tree with v5 applied is here:
https://github.com/agraf/u-boot/tree/efi-sandbox-v5
Branch efi-next at the same location is the base for v5.
OK well at this stage I'm going to leave it in your hands as I've lost track of all the patches and have no desire to send a v10 series.
Once everything lands I'll take a look and see if I think anything is missing. Hopefully we can get sandbox EFi support into master when the merge window opens.
Regards, Simon