On 07.12.20 17:17, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 16:24, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.12.20 16:07, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 14:43, Grant Likely wrote:
I have a conflict this week and need to cancel. I propose pushing out
to next week (Dec 14th), and cancelling the meeting on the 21st when
many people will be on holiday anyway. Let me know if you want
anything added to the meeting agenda before next week.
A topic that interests me is how much HII support we need in EBBR.
Chapter 2.6.2 of the UEFI spec has "If a platform includes a
configuration infrastructure, then the EFI_HII_DATABASE_PROTOCOL,
EFI_HII_STRING_PROTOCOL, EFI_HII_CONFIG_ROUTING_PROTOCOL, and
EFI_HII_CONFIG_ACCESS_PROTOCOL are required. If you support bitmapped
fonts, you must support EFI_HII_FONT_PROTOCOL."
"A configuration infrastructure" in my view should be nothing required
by EBBR.
It has only been the UEFI SCT driving U-Boot to implement some HII
protocol stubs. I wonder if this dependency could be removed from the
SCT.
I think it's only in SCT because it's used in Shell.efi, no? So if we
can somehow remove it from there, it should also remove the dependency
for SCT I hope.
And yes, I agree 100% - HII really shouldn't be necessary for EBBR.
Alex
Alex, you are right it is the shell that is using HII strings and the
HII database extensively. But at least all other HII protocols can be
removed from the list of requirements.
I would love if we could use that chance to get rid of the coupling of
Shell.efi and HII as well :)
Alex
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
