[PATCH v2 0/9] efi: Various tidy-ups and drop the default

[Simon Glass]

Hi Mark,

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 at 13:50, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > Date: Fri,  2 Jul 2021 12:36:11 -0600
> >
> > It has come to light that EFI_LOADER adds an extraordinary amount of
> > code to U-Boot. For example, with nokia_rx51 the size delta is about
> > 90KB. About 170 boards explicitly disable the option, but is is clear
> > that many more could, thus saving image size and boot time.
> >
> > The current situation is affecting U-Boot's image as a svelt bootloader.
> >
> > EFI_LOADER is required by EBBR, a new boot standard which aims to
> > bring in UEFI protocols to U-Boot. But EBRR is not required for
> > booting. U-Boot already provides support for FIT, the 'bootm' command
> > and a suitable hand-off to Linux. EBRR has made the decision to create
> > a parallel infrastructure, e.g. does not use FIT, nor U-Boot's signing
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > EBBR should be truly optional, enabled only by boards that use it. Most
> > don't use it but it is enabled anyway. The default boot path should be
> > one that makes use of the existing U-Boot support.
> >
> > To try to retify this situation, this series adds a new Kconfig option
> > for EBBR so that the naming is more explicit. Then EFI_LOADER is updated
> > to depend on it.
> >
> > The final patch makes EBBR optional. For now, only sandbox enables EBBR.
> > Other boards can be added as needed, presumably by distributions that
> > require it. Another approach would be to add 'CONFIG_EBBR=y' to the
> > .config before building, in the build system. That might be more friendly
> > to U-Boot users.
> >
> > This series also fixes a minor issue noticed during testing.
>
> I don't understand why you're pushing this series in a form that
> still disables EFI_LOADER by default after last weeks discussions.

I moved the change to non-default to the last patch. Even if that is
not a good idea, the rest of the series stands.

But more specifically to your question, I have not seen any discussion
about the size issues identified. Nor has there been any comment on my
suggestion in the cover letter for distros to define CONFIG_EBBR
themselves when building U-Boot. I still think turning it off by
default makes sense given the current situation.

Regards,
Simon