Mark Kettenis wrote: > Unfortunately there isn't a good source for pre-built U-Boot binaries, > let alone a source of pre-built U-Boot binaries that didn't somehow > fuck up EFI support.
I'd like if EFI wasn't the only supported interface, especially since DTB is prefered over MSFT ACPI when available, but I suppose it's hard to put that genie back in the bottle. > So I think the u-boot port *is* useful even if we don't use it to > create bootable installer images. But only as long as we don't > ship a package with broken images. Agree. > It is clear that we don't have the manpower and infrastructure to > test a large enough fraction of the u-boot binaries that our > current u-boot package produces. Hence my suggestion to split the > package (and mostly forget about the older ones where new versions > of U-Boot don't really add any new functionality). Also agree. I've been working on something to help with automated testing for about half a year now, I'll let you know when that's ready. Meanwhile, freezing firmware is a classic approach that works until the OS requires new features, e.g. EFI.. But since EFI is already a requirement freezing is a good approach at the very least for now. Thanks //Peter
