On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:48:00AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 6/28/21 3:48 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Add a new Kconfig option for EBBR so that the naming is more explicit. > > Make EFI_LOADER depend on it. > > > > Avoid enabling the options (EBBR / EFI_LOADER) by default, to save space. > > NAK > > Operating systems like Fedora, OpenBSD, FreeBSD require UEFI support. > > See discussion in > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-June/452947.html
I also think this is taking things in the wrong direction. It was an intentional "make EFI_LOADER default when supported" when we introduced it, and I still think that's the right overall choice. There's a whole lot of non-customization going on when reference designs are converted to products or other reference designs. > > Also add dependencies on driver model and OF_CONTROL, since boards which > > have not migrated to these should not be using new features like EBBR. > > Only supporting devices using the driver model in the UEFI sub-system is > fine with me. CONFIG_BLK=y is another possible requirement. Adding these would be good. And may allow for the code to be simplified? > We still have 101 defconfigs not using CONFIG_DM=y. Shouldn't they be > eliminated? They will be eliminated after v2022.01, following the same 2 years of "the deadline has passed" that's being used by the board removals I've been posting so far this year. > We have a low number of boards using CONFIG_DM=y and > CONFIG_OF_CONTROL=n. Shouldn't they be moved to CONFIG_OF_CONTROL=y and > that symbol be eliminated? No, we don't require OF_CONTROL intentionally so that other smaller mechanisms can be used. [snip] > We have 274 defconfigs with CONFIG_PARTITIONS=y and CONFIG_BLK=n. > Shouldn't they be converted or eliminated? Some number of them will be, I think there's one or two actual funny cases on how that code is used however. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
