Hi Mark, On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 at 13:50, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > From: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 12:36:11 -0600 > > > > It has come to light that EFI_LOADER adds an extraordinary amount of > > code to U-Boot. For example, with nokia_rx51 the size delta is about > > 90KB. About 170 boards explicitly disable the option, but is is clear > > that many more could, thus saving image size and boot time. > > > > The current situation is affecting U-Boot's image as a svelt bootloader. > > > > EFI_LOADER is required by EBBR, a new boot standard which aims to > > bring in UEFI protocols to U-Boot. But EBRR is not required for > > booting. U-Boot already provides support for FIT, the 'bootm' command > > and a suitable hand-off to Linux. EBRR has made the decision to create > > a parallel infrastructure, e.g. does not use FIT, nor U-Boot's signing > > infrastructure. > > > > EBBR should be truly optional, enabled only by boards that use it. Most > > don't use it but it is enabled anyway. The default boot path should be > > one that makes use of the existing U-Boot support. > > > > To try to retify this situation, this series adds a new Kconfig option > > for EBBR so that the naming is more explicit. Then EFI_LOADER is updated > > to depend on it. > > > > The final patch makes EBBR optional. For now, only sandbox enables EBBR. > > Other boards can be added as needed, presumably by distributions that > > require it. Another approach would be to add 'CONFIG_EBBR=y' to the > > .config before building, in the build system. That might be more friendly > > to U-Boot users. > > > > This series also fixes a minor issue noticed during testing. > > I don't understand why you're pushing this series in a form that > still disables EFI_LOADER by default after last weeks discussions.
I moved the change to non-default to the last patch. Even if that is not a good idea, the rest of the series stands. But more specifically to your question, I have not seen any discussion about the size issues identified. Nor has there been any comment on my suggestion in the cover letter for distros to define CONFIG_EBBR themselves when building U-Boot. I still think turning it off by default makes sense given the current situation. Regards, Simon
