On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 05:38:27PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 13:08, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:42:04AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > At present only x86 supports the EFI app and (apart from Qualcomm) the > > > payload. In preparation for supporting ARM more generally, rename the > > > existing VENDOR_EFI option to VENDOR_EFI_X86, using that to define a > > > generic VENDOR_EFI which will be enabled for all architectures. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > This looks like things that should just live under > > BOARD_SPECIFIC_OPTIONS in board/efi/Kconfig instead. > > I don't really understand what you are getting at there. > > That directory is for boards, but it seems that EFI is going to grow > from just being a set of boards, e.g. with board/qualcomm also having > an EFI-payload build.
We shouldn't need VENDOR_EFI_FOO, we should likely (a) drop VENDOR_ as that's an x86'ism and then place more things as needed under lib/efi/Kconfig. Especially if we're going to have (really?) end up with per-SoC efi app builds for arm64, rather than something generic. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
