On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:38:04AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 at 07:41, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 09:49:43PM -0800, Tony Dinh wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 8:32 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 at 10:22, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 08:52:38AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 16:32, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > I'm referring to the whole bootmeth/bootflow/etc thing. Is this > > > > > > > going to > > > > > > > be put to use by anyone / anywhere on PowerPC? M68K? MIPS? 32bit > > > > > > > ARM is > > > > > > > a harder question there, which is also where this particular > > > > > > > overflow > > > > > > > was. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm still not sure what you are saying. Are you wanting to disable > > > > > > bootstd by default / go back to distro scripts / force everyone to > > > > > > use > > > > > > EFI_LOADER / ? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'm asking where it's appropriate to enable this new > > > > > functionality > > > > > by default. It certainly should be enabled on arm64 (there's new > > > > > designs) and riscv (there's new designs). It still ought to be enabled > > > > > on arm32 because we otherwise lack a easy way to say "new" arm32 (say > > > > > i.MX7) and not "old" arm32 (say i.MX23). What is the point of enabling > > > > > this on PowerPC for example? The active users there are (generally) > > > > > supporting legacy hardware and I have no idea how much they want to > > > > > change their boot process, once bootstd supports flash for example. > > > > > There's similar questions for everything else under arch/ as well. > > > > > > > > To me this is in fact two different questions. > > > > > > > > 1. For PowerPC, m68k, MIPS, I suppose we can just disable BOOTSTD and > > > > wait for them to go away, if you are saying that they are behind on > > > > migrations will never catch up > > > > On what migrations? A board that has a boot command is not some legacy > > non-migrated case. That's a valid regular use case. > > I'm referring to a board that uses distro scripts.
OK. Just FYI, "distro scripts" weren't a thing outside of ARM (and maybe RISC-V, and just turris_1x_sdcard on PPC?). -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
