[PATCH v2 7/9] Make EFI_LOADER depend on DM and OF_CONTROL

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 7/27/21 12:07 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:36:18PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>
>> This feature should never have been made available when driver model
>> or devicetree are disabled. Add these as conditions, so that we don't
>> create even more barriers to migration.
>>
>> Add a note about the substantial size increment associated with this
>> option.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Split out new patch to make EFI_LOADER depend on DM and OF_CONTROL
>> - Note the approximate size of this feature in the help
>>
>>   lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
>> index 6242caceb7f..466abfed300 100644
>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>>   config EFI_LOADER
>>   	bool "Support running UEFI applications"
>> -	depends on OF_LIBFDT && ( \
>> +	depends on OF_LIBFDT && DM && OF_CONTROL && ( \

Didn't Tom eliminate all boards without CONFIG_DM? Shouldn't we get rid
of this symbol?

Are there boards using DM and not OF_CONTROL or OF_CONTROL and not DM?
Why are these separate symbols? Isn't this symbol to be eliminated, too?

lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c is the only place where we maintain duplicate
code for DM and non-DM. A dependency on CONFIG_BLK (which itself depends
on CONFIG_DM) would make more sense to me. But only in a patch
eliminating the non-BLK code.

>>   		ARM && (SYS_CPU = arm1136 || \
>>   			SYS_CPU = arm1176 || \
>>   			SYS_CPU = armv7   || \
>> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ config EFI_LOADER
>>   	  will expose the UEFI API to a loaded application, enabling it to
>>   	  reuse U-Boot's device drivers.
>>
>> +	  For ARM 32-bit, this adds about 90KB to the size of U-Boot.
>> +

There is no unit ISO prefix K. Do you mean KiB?

90 KiB may be the value today. Will you update it regularly? Otherwise
don't put a number here.

I can't see that the effect on size is truly architecture specific. Why
do you refer to 32bit ARM?

Such a comment would better fit into a documentation chapter on
downsizing U-Boot.

Best regards

Heinrich

>>   if EFI_LOADER
>>
>>   config CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
>
> Note that we have platforms today with EFI_LOADER without OF_CONTROL, so
> this isn't strictly the right requirements.  What do you think here
> Heinrich?
>
>