Hi Tom, On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 10:33, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 09:01:03AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 22:07, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 18. Oktober 2024 01:24:02 MESZ schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > >We want to keep track of images which are loaded, or those which could > > > >perhaps be loaded. This will make it easier to manage memory allocation, > > > >as well as permit removal of the EFI set_efi_bootdev() hack. > > > > I'll change this 'hack' to 'feature'. > > > > > > > > Please, keep in mind that files can be loaded manually, e.g. via the > > > dhcp, the wget, and the loady commands. These are outside bootflows. > > > > Yes, this series is only going to help if bootstd is used. For ad-hoc > > use, EFI will need to rely on the above feature, at least until > > someone can think of another solution. > > Perhaps I need to try and be clearer here than I might have been in the > past. The consensus among off the shelf free software operating systems > is "just give me an EFI interface". This simplifies things on their end > if regardless of architecture it's the same interface. This means that > in U-Boot we need to treat EFI as one of the primary interfaces. Not a > novelty. Not a "some people might use". It is a frequent and commonly > used feature.
Yes, EFI is everywhere and growing. All the more reason to tidy up this piece. I would like to see bootmgr use this new API, for example. But how does this comment affect this patch? Regards, Simon
