Agree

- DW
-
-----Original Message-----
From: Olof Johansson <o...@lixom.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:58 AM
To: Dong Wei <dong....@arm.com>
Cc: David Rusling <david.rusl...@linaro.org>; wmi...@ti.com; 
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss <arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR - Fog, Edge and Device

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Dong Wei <dong....@arm.com> wrote:
> There may be a need for making EBBR more aware to the community.
>
> I ran into a case at Computex last week. Ambedded makes storage servers using 
> Marvell SoCs. Even though Marvell provides UEFI code for the SoC, Ambedded 
> chose to do the uboot anyways.

I think a relevant distinction here is that if someone wants to still do 
u-boot, they should strongly consider using a version new enough to implement 
EBBR interfaces such as UEFI services. On price-sensitive devices where you 
want to optimize flash BOM cost, skipping Tianocore
*can* have cost impact, but if the interfaces are kept compatible that should 
be just fine.

As always, if the SoC vendor provides a reference implementation for their 
platforms such that doing the right thing is also doing the easiest thing when 
making a derivative product design, everybody wins.


-Olof
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture

Reply via email to