On 7/27/21 12:07 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:36:18PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
This feature should never have been made available when driver model
or devicetree are disabled. Add these as conditions, so that we don't
create even more barriers to migration.
Add a note about the substantial size increment associated with this
option.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v2:
- Split out new patch to make EFI_LOADER depend on DM and OF_CONTROL
- Note the approximate size of this feature in the help
lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
index 6242caceb7f..466abfed300 100644
--- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
+++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
config EFI_LOADER
bool "Support running UEFI applications"
- depends on OF_LIBFDT && ( \
+ depends on OF_LIBFDT && DM && OF_CONTROL && ( \
Didn't Tom eliminate all boards without CONFIG_DM? Shouldn't we get rid
of this symbol?
Are there boards using DM and not OF_CONTROL or OF_CONTROL and not DM?
Why are these separate symbols? Isn't this symbol to be eliminated, too?
lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c is the only place where we maintain duplicate
code for DM and non-DM. A dependency on CONFIG_BLK (which itself depends
on CONFIG_DM) would make more sense to me. But only in a patch
eliminating the non-BLK code.
ARM && (SYS_CPU = arm1136 || \
SYS_CPU = arm1176 || \
SYS_CPU = armv7 || \
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ config EFI_LOADER
will expose the UEFI API to a loaded application, enabling it to
reuse U-Boot's device drivers.
+ For ARM 32-bit, this adds about 90KB to the size of U-Boot.
+
There is no unit ISO prefix K. Do you mean KiB?
90 KiB may be the value today. Will you update it regularly? Otherwise
don't put a number here.
I can't see that the effect on size is truly architecture specific. Why
do you refer to 32bit ARM?
Such a comment would better fit into a documentation chapter on
downsizing U-Boot.
Best regards
Heinrich
if EFI_LOADER
config CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
Note that we have platforms today with EFI_LOADER without OF_CONTROL, so
this isn't strictly the right requirements. What do you think here
Heinrich?
