[PATCH v2 01/39] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model

[Simon Glass]

Hi Jan,

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 09:35, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote:
>
> On 14.10.22 17:33, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 07:13, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 01:51:54PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> On 21.10.21 01:34, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >>>> On 9/25/21 2:30 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>>>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
> >>>>> of legacy code. This has already been improved with the dependency on
> >>>>> BLK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Add a dependency on DM_ETH also, to avoid needing to deal with this old
> >>>>> code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note this patch is included to resolve the following build error:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c:680:16: error: ‘CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE’
> >>>>>     undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean
> >>>>>     ‘CONFIG_SYS_SRAM_BASE’?
> >>>>>    680 |   ulong base = CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE;
> >>>>>        |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>        |                CONFIG_SYS_SRAM_BASE
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> How to deal with boards that need CONFIG_NET but do not actually
> >>> implement any driver (yet)? This now broke UEFI for the IOT2050 which
> >>> needs NET for network-related device tree setup (see also [1]) and
> >>> enforces a local hack for us.
> >>
> >> Yes, looking at the patch, this should probably use NETDEVICES and not
> >> NET as the test? Would that fix your problem, Jan?
> >
> > But that selects DM_ETH. You can still enable DM_ETH when there are no
> > devices, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Can you post an error?
> >
> > Things should be migrated to DM_ETH by now (end of 2020).
> >
>
> I am enable DM_ETH now at board-level, just to make EFI_LOADER happy,
> but that feels wrong.

I agree, but I wonder if this might need some code refactoring.
Perhaps EFI_LOADER_NET needs to be created, net functionality can be
disabled?

Regards,
Simon