On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:23:08 -0400 > > From: Tom Rini > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:15:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > From: Simon Glass > > > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600 > > > > > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top > > > > > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a > > > > > >> different maintainer. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> So, please, separate it from the series. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is the maintainer? > > > > > > > > > > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application") > > > > > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main > > > > > contributor. > > > > > > > > > > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD. > > > > > > > > > > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI. > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things > > > > > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer > > > > > > to pick up the series once the others are happy. > > > > > > > > > > The direction of this patch is completely correct. > > > > > > > > > > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not > > > > > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail. > > > > > > > > OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago. > > > > > > Because we support boards without network ports? > > > > Boards without networking should disable the relevant code, and as > > needed the EFI code return the proper error code? > > Yes, but it means you can't make DM_ETH a (hard) requirement for > EFI_LOADER support. What I mean is that it should still be possible > to build U-Boot with EFI_LOADER support even if DM_EFI isn't set for a > board. It should just result in a UEFI implementation with no network > support instead. Yes, agreed. I was just trying to say that in the context of what DM code EFI_LOADER can demand, the deadline for BLK has passed and everything that didn't support it has been removed, so that's a good requirement and area of code to clean up as needed. But DM_ETH-or-bust isn't there, yet. -- Tom