On 01/22/2019 08:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 22:08, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
On 22.01.19 09:29, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Alex, Simon,
Apologies for my slow response on this matter,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 08:57:05AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 11.01.19 05:29, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Alex, Heinrich and Simon,
Thank you for your comments, they are all valuable but also make me
confused as different people have different requirements :)
I'm not sure that all of us share the same *ultimate* goal here.
The shared ultimate goal is to "merge" (as Simon put it) dm and efi objects.
I don't still understand what "merge" means very well.
It basically means that "struct efi_object" moves into "struct udevice".
Every udevice instance of type UCLASS_BLK would expose the block and
device_path protocols.
This will be a slightly bigger rework, but eventually allows us to
basically get rid of efi_init_obj_list() I think.
I envisaged something like:
- EFI objects have their own UCLASS_EFI uclass
... and then we need to create our own sub object model around the
UCLASS_EFI devices again. I' not convinced that's a great idea yet :). I
really see little reason not to just expose every dm device as EFI
handle. Things would plug in quite naturally I think.
But either way, someone would need to sit down and prototype things to
be sure.
Alex
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
