[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] efi_loader: Do not enable it by default for sunxi

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:54:43AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > >> > If it's a false one, then I guess Red Hat doesn't have any kind of
> > > >> > custom defconfigs for Fedora or RHEL for the kernel?
> > > >>
> > > >> kernel is part of the distro, "firmware" (ie. u-boot or whatever
> > > >> implements UEFI) should not be.. so this argument is a bit of a red
> > > >> herring.
> > > >
> > > > Then that discussion is entirely moot. If the distros don't care about
> > > > building the U-Boot binary, why should they care about maintaining the
> > > > U-Boot's defconfig like Peter was suggesting?
> > > 
> > > You're taking that and turning it around wrong, we currently have to
> > > care about building it. Ultimately what we'd like is to not have to
> > > care. One is the current status quo, the other is future desire!
> > 
> > Then we're back to the previous question you didn't answer. If you
> > have to build it, why can't you have a custom defconfig, or a
> > configuration fragment like Rob suggested, like you do for the kernel?
> 
> Because the goal is that boards ship from the manufacturer with a
> firmware that's "good enough".  And firmware updates are handled by
> Someone Else, rather than the distro.

We're talking about a vendor that ships today a U-Boot build that
either doesn't have DT support, or doesn't start the kernel in the
proper execution level which prevents any mainline kernel from
running.

Maybe it's just me being too pessimistic about this, but do you really
expect to see a time where they would ship a bootloader with EFI?

Maxmie

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20171020/d33a4436/attachment.sig>