Hi Alex,
On 11 June 2018 at 23:44, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 24 May 2018 at 06:34, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote:
Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within sandbox anyway.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Changes in v4: None Changes in v3: None Changes in v2: None
lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI efi_invalid_parameter(void); #include <asm/elf.h> #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE #define R_MASK 0xffULL +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX)
Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX)
Yes, understood, same comment as on the other patch. We can always add support for ARM, etc. when people can try it and test it.
What would keep people from trying it?
Time and inclination, most likely.
Regards, Simon