On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 04/18/2014 09:35 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 03:55:48PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> >>> From: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> >>> >>> CONFIG_API is needed for u-boot apps such as grub2, so enable it for >>> distro config. >>> >>> Cc: Dennis Gilmore <den...@ausil.us> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> >> >> This breaks a number of boards that have opted in to the distro config. >> The full list is: >> whistler trimslice beaver tec paz00 ventana cardhu harmony dalmore >> plutux medcom-wide rpi_b venice2 colibri_t20_iris tec-ng seaboard >> >> How do you guys want to handle this? I can apply now and they can be >> fixed up later, or I can wait for fixup patches to come out and apply >> them all at once. Thanks! > > I've sent patches that solve all the build problems on Tegra with > CONFIG_API enabled. > > That said, I still conceptually object to config_distro_defaults.h > enabling API support in order to support grub; I believe the distros > need to get together and nail down a *single* boot mechanism to > standardize upon, rather than having Fedora support BootloaderSpec, > Ubuntu/Linaro(?) support Grub, something else support LILO, something > else support UEFI, etc. Without this, we'll force every U-Boot binary to > be bloated with all kinds of redundant code. Having a single standard > mechanism was always the point of config_distro_defaults.h in my mind. > > BTW, does Grub work well for you? I did try it many months ago, and found:
Huh, why would I use grub. I just boot my kernels directly. :) Enabling this for grub was something requested for highbank that I'm just getting around to. > a) It was excruciatingly slow, to the point of not being useful. > > b) The binary had hard-coded memory layout, and hence couldn't be > generic across multiple boards, since SoCs put their RAM in different > places, boards have differing amounts of RAM, etc. This kinda defeats > the whole purpose, since distros would need to install board-specific > Grub binaries. Perhaps this could be solved similarly to the kernel's > CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT? Uggg, That certainly sounds pointless to use. Leif, comments? > If we really need Grub support, wouldn't it be better to have U-Boot > parse and execute grub.cfg, just like it does extlinux.cfg? I don't disagree, but at least some distros keep saying they must have grub itself. That's why grub on u-boot was done in the first place. Rob _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
