[PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model

Tom Rini trini at konsulko.com
Fri Sep 10 00:06:30 CEST 2021


On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:23:08 -0400
> > From: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:15:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
> > > > > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
> > > > > >> different maintainer.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is the maintainer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
> > > > > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > > > > contributor.
> > > > >
> > > > > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
> > > > 
> > > > OK.
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things
> > > > > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer
> > > > > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> > > > > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail.
> > > > 
> > > > OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
> > > 
> > > Because we support boards without network ports?
> > 
> > Boards without networking should disable the relevant code, and as
> > needed the EFI code return the proper error code?
> 
> Yes, but it means you can't make DM_ETH a (hard) requirement for
> EFI_LOADER support.  What I mean is that it should still be possible
> to build U-Boot with EFI_LOADER support even if DM_EFI isn't set for a
> board.  It should just result in a UEFI implementation with no network
> support instead.

Yes, agreed.  I was just trying to say that in the context of what DM
code EFI_LOADER can demand, the deadline for BLK has passed and
everything that didn't support it has been removed, so that's a good
requirement and area of code to clean up as needed.  But DM_ETH-or-bust
isn't there, yet.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20210909/298cdb25/attachment.sig>


More information about the U-Boot mailing list