[PATCH] EFI Loader: Correct dependencies for EFI_HTTP_BOOT

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 04:08:22PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 13:51, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 08:42:39AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > Am 17. März 2026 08:03:47 MEZ schrieb Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>:
> > > >Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > >On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 03:24, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> As exposed by "make randconfig", we have an issue with the dependencies
> > > >> for EFI_HTTP_BOOT. As this is implemeneted by running commands (as seen
> > > >> by what it selects) it must depend on CMDLINE as well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> > > >
> > > >In theory, you can configure UEFI with a set of prebuilt boot options.
> > > >If one of them is http(s) the device will boot even if CMDLINE is not
> > > >selected. I am not against this patch, but we will remove the
> > > >possibility to build a firmware without cmdline that just boots to
> > > >whatever is was preconfigured
> > > >
> > > >Cheers
> > > >/Ilias
> > > >> ---
> > > >> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
> > > >> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>  lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 1 +
> > > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > >> index b5f81e0ff530..a9b2f813e1d5 100644
> > > >> --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > >> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > >> @@ -600,6 +600,7 @@ config EFI_BOOTMGR
> > > >>  config EFI_HTTP_BOOT
> > > >>         bool "EFI HTTP Boot support"
> > > >>         depends on NET || NET_LWIP
> > > >> +       depends on CMDLINE
> > > >>         select CMD_NET
> > > >>         select CMD_DHCP
> > > >>         select CMD_DNS
> > >
> > > Having to select commands here to get network is what needs to change. The network commands and EFI_HTTP_BOOT both should depend on configuration symbols for the protocol implementations.
> >
> > Yes. And this is about fixing missing dependencies, today.
> >
> > > @Tom: Do we have a target release when to finish the move to the LWIP stack?
> >
> > We do not. I'm not yet sure if all the various use cases of the legacy
> > stack are fully supported now (I don't recall off-hand the NFS series
> > state right now for example).
> 
> I did see NFS patches go through the list.

I saw the NFS support as well shortly after hitting send, as part of a
randconfig build.

> I think there's also likely some legacy usecases where non parity is
> likely fine too.

Perhaps the question really is, for the distribution folks, what are the
use cases you know of where lwIP doesn't have support yet? That's the
first big hurdle towards, likely, saying EFI_LOADER implies NET_LWIP
maybe, since I know there's cases there lwIP is better for.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20260317/1b11ef11/attachment.sig>