2015-12-25 12:25 GMT+03:00 Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de>:
> Am 25.12.2015 um 10:02 schrieb Alexander Graf:
> [snip]
>> The reason I implemented "bootefi" was really because it's the natural
>> fit into how U-Boot handles all other formats today. I don't think this
>> is going to be the last patch set around EFI support.
>
> I think what Matwey was suggesting is integrating your "bootefi" into
> the standard "distro" boot sequence environment, so that it probes each
> device for an EFI binary and if it finds one runs load and bootefi,
> without the need for any boot.scr.
I have no problem if boot{arm,a64,x64}.efi search is implemented via
standard bootscript.
But I like idea about extlinux.conf too.
>
> That would be a follow-up patch.
>
> It however conflicts with your idea of having some potentially
> board-specific code mess with "fdt addr" command before running "bootefi".
>
> My solution would be to give boot.scr preference over *.efi, so that the
> user has a way to load dtb and run "bootefi" on his own, and otherwise
> fall back to just "bootefi" which'll spit a warning about lack of fdt if
> I read that correctly.
>
Yeah, dtb should be anyhow controlled by the user to make workarounds possible.
Funny story about how u-boot detects dtb:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-December/237604.html
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
With best regards,
Matwey V. Kornilov
http://blog.matwey.name
xmpp://0x2...@jabber.ru
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
