On 04/10/18 08:18, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >>> uboot for example implements uefi unterfaces too (dunno how complete, >>> but reportly recent versions can run uefi shell and grub just fine). >> >> Indeed: when I was struggling with this enum type and tried to look for >> more firmware types to add, my googling turned up the "UEFI on Top of >> U-Boot" whitepaper, from Alex and Andreas :) > > In case you wanna play: uboot supports x86 qemu meanwhile, so you can > try install u-boot.git-x86 from my firmware repo, then run > "qemu-system-x86_64 -bios /usr/share/u-boot.git/x86/qemu-pc/u-boot.rom". > > It certainly isn't a useful edk2 replacement atm. It has no virtio > drivers. And even when using ide storage its not like it would happily > boot a fedora live iso. So I certainly wouldn't tag that as uefi today. > That might change at some point in the future though. > >> Again, this reaches to the root of the problem: when a user creates a >> new domain, using high-level tools, they just want to tick "UEFI". (Dan >> has emphasized this to me several times, so I think I get the idea by >> now, if not the full environment.) We cannot ask the user, "please be >> more specific, do you want UEFI from edk2, or UEFI on top of U-Boot?" > > Well, in case the uefi support in u-boot is good enough some day then it > doesn't matter to the user whenever uboot or edk2 boots the efi guest > from disk/iso, right?
I believe that's correct. Laszlo
