On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 05:46:43PM -0300, Mitchell Horne wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 1:52 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:34:11PM -0400, mho...@freebsd.org wrote: > > > > > From: Mitchell Horne <mho...@freebsd.org> > > > > > > FreeBSD makes use of u-boot's CONFIG_API to provide a version of its > > > standard bootloader for embedded architectures. This series adds the > > > necessary support for the RISC-V architecture, along with some small > > > fixes to the API demo program for 64-bit systems. > > > > Adding in the RISC-V maintainer and EFI maintainer. I thought the > > intention was for OSes to use the EFI loader here, even for "embedded" ? > > Thanks! > > > > Hi Tom, > > You are right, EFI is preferred. FreeBSD's loader has two > implementations on arm: one that is an EFI application, and one based > on this u-boot API (known as "ubldr"). ubldr precedes the EFI > implementation by a few years. > > For RISC-V my intention is also to implement both versions, and ubldr > was simpler on FreeBSD's side, so I chose to do that first. Do you > think this series is still worth pursuing if u-boot is going the way > of EFI?
In my mind at least, the EFI interface is preferred as it's a defined external standard interface. If the architecture maintainers want to support both the U-Boot API and EFI on RISC-V, I don't object. But one of the intentions is to have there be less work for OS folks to have to do for example. So that you found this a good first step for your use case means perhaps we need to continue to have the U-Boot API method be around (not that we had planned any sort of removal). Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature