Agree - DW - -----Original Message----- From: Olof Johansson <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:58 AM To: Dong Wei <[email protected]> Cc: David Rusling <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; arm.ebbr-discuss <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR - Fog, Edge and Device
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 IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
