On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Dong Wei <[email protected]> wrote: > There may be a need for making EBBR more aware to the community. > > I ran into a case at Computex last week. Ambedded makes storage servers using > Marvell SoCs. Even though Marvell provides UEFI code for the SoC, Ambedded > chose to do the uboot anyways.
I think a relevant distinction here is that if someone wants to still do u-boot, they should strongly consider using a version new enough to implement EBBR interfaces such as UEFI services. On price-sensitive devices where you want to optimize flash BOM cost, skipping Tianocore *can* have cost impact, but if the interfaces are kept compatible that should be just fine. As always, if the SoC vendor provides a reference implementation for their platforms such that doing the right thing is also doing the easiest thing when making a derivative product design, everybody wins. -Olof _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
