Hi Andrei, Sorry, have been off on holiday.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:43:54AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > It seems that distributions tend to focus on native U-Boot support for > extlinux-like configuration and direct loading of Linux kernel/FDT. > Recently it came up for openSUSE, reasons were named Debian don't, and I'm not sure I've heard of any others moving that direction, so I don't know if it can be called a trend. > 1. upstream U-Boot prefers extlinux for loading, CONFIG_API is > considered edge case, deprecated. They do not consider GRUB valid reason > to maintain it :) Do you have any references to this? (Not questioning it, sounds likely, but would like to read through any existing discussions.) > 2. GRUB requires patching for each board to set valid link address Yeah :( > 3. some general issues on specific boards Hmm? > 1 requires active commitment from U-Boot community, apparently it is > lacking. To properly fix 2 we need relocation support in U-Boot; which > again returns us to "GRUB not being interesting to U-Boot community" :) No, 2 would be totally fixable in GRUB. It would just take someone actually making the grub kernel position independent. And I haven't managed to find the time in the past two years... > 3 depends on motivation to debug and fix issues; as long as GRUB is not > considered there is none. > > So what should we do with this port? Unsure. I have had people start asking me for the arm64 variant, but if the U-Boot community is actively disintirested in providing an API to hook into, this may not make sense. Regards, Leif _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
