[PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Avoid using dm_scan_other()

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 12/16/23 21:46, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 06:21, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:18:09PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>> On 11/12/23 21:55, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> This function is defined by bootstd so using it precludes using that
>>>> feature. Use the board_early_init_r() feature instead.
>>>>
>>>> This requires moving quite a lot of code into the board directory, butt
>>>> this is the normal place for code called by board_early_init_r()
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Drop duplicate acpi_xsdt patch
>>>> - Put the board_early_init_r code into board/
>>>>
>>>>    board/efi/efi-x86_app/Makefile  |   5 +
>>>>    board/efi/efi-x86_app/efi_app.c | 205 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Our target should be to enable building the EFI app on all architectures.
>>>
>>> Only x86 specific code should be added to board/efi/efi-x86_app/efi_app.c.
>>
>> A later enhancement to make U-Boot as an EFI app more generic would be
>> good, but outside the scope of this patch which is moving generic code
>> out from "lib" and in to "board".

I cannot see that this patch is moving any code our of lib/.

But why should we move generic code into board?

>
> This patch was marked as old /archived in patchwork so has been
> forgotten. I have marked it new and non-archived in the hope that it
> can be applied to -master soon.

There is nothing x86 specific about the code. Generic code should be in
lib/. Please, provide a new version of the patch.

>
> I believe that having the EFI app support bootstd could be a useful addition.

That was not disputed.

Best regards

Heinrich