[U-Boot] efi: Error building as EFI payload (both 32bit and 64 bit)

[Bin Meng]

+Simon

Hi Igor,

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Stoppa, Igor <igor.stoppa at intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 14 August 2015 at 15:15, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> These are Kconfig options. I am not sure what makes you think they are binary?
>
> Binary as commented out vs set to y

I guess you mean boolean? Binary makes me think some image file ..

>
>>> That might be inferred from the doc, when it is said to set a certain option.
>>> So one might just try to set it to "y"
>>> But it's not 100% obvious.
>>
>> Again, these are Kconfig stuff. You can easily add these options by
>> looking at the existing options in the same config file, even without
>> knowing Kconfig.
>
> But some Kconfig options are used as strings, so one could be set as:
>
> CONFIG_SOME_OPTION="something"
>
> and another could be unset as:
>
> CONFIG_SOME_OTHER_OPTION=""
>
> That's what I meant.

OK, all of these are boolean. You can double check the Kconfig files.

>
> [...]
>
>> I believe the intention here is that we don't want to create too many
>> board defconfig files with just one or two different option(s). With
>> EFI payload, technically almost every x86 board we support can support
>> building as the EFI payload. If we do that way, we may end up creating
>> too many config variants to "pollute" the U-Boot source tree. The
>> defconfig files (as indicated by its name) is only the default
>> configuration for a board and one can adjust the file with whatever
>> options he likes to add/remove.
>
> Yes, I understand.
>
> In the end it's a decision on the trade-off between having a terse
> directory and file layout vs. giving 1st time users something that
> works out of the box.
>
> As 1st time user I would obviously go for the latter :-)
> If there is something that _is_ expected to work, it reduces the
> problem space I have to debug when I experience a failure.
>
> --

Regards,
Bin