> > uboot for example implements uefi unterfaces too (dunno how complete,
> > but reportly recent versions can run uefi shell and grub just fine).
> Indeed: when I was struggling with this enum type and tried to look for
> more firmware types to add, my googling turned up the "UEFI on Top of
> U-Boot" whitepaper, from Alex and Andreas :)

In case you wanna play: uboot supports x86 qemu meanwhile, so you can
try install u-boot.git-x86 from my firmware repo, then run
"qemu-system-x86_64 -bios /usr/share/u-boot.git/x86/qemu-pc/u-boot.rom".

It certainly isn't a useful edk2 replacement atm.  It has no virtio
drivers.  And even when using ide storage its not like it would happily
boot a fedora live iso.  So I certainly wouldn't tag that as uefi today.
That might change at some point in the future though.

> Again, this reaches to the root of the problem: when a user creates a
> new domain, using high-level tools, they just want to tick "UEFI". (Dan
> has emphasized this to me several times, so I think I get the idea by
> now, if not the full environment.) We cannot ask the user, "please be
> more specific, do you want UEFI from edk2, or UEFI on top of U-Boot?"

Well, in case the uefi support in u-boot is good enough some day then it
doesn't matter to the user whenever uboot or edk2 boots the efi guest
from disk/iso, right?


Reply via email to