On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 05:04:19PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Takahiro, > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 02:14, AKASHI Takahiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > # bootefi doesn't work with this patch set yet > > > > This patch set came from the past discussion[1] on my "removable device > > support" patch and is intended to be an attempt to integrate efi objects > > into u-boot's Driver Model as much seamlessly as possible. > > > > [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-January/354010.html > > Some general comments: > > protocol_list: Can you use DM_GET_DRIVER? It should be more efficient
Okay. > efi_open_protocol_information: > - rename of protocol to protocol_guid should be in a separate patch Okay, but I may will rename other argument names instead. > u-boot - please use 'U-Boot' consistently Sure. > Your patch to rename UCLASS_EFI -> UCLASS_EFI_DRIVER still leaves > UCLASS_EFI remaining. Can you mention why> > > It says efi_root is for backward compatibility. Just temporary? I > could not quite figure that out. The concept of "efi_root" is a discussion. > Use if (IS_ENABLED()) instead of #ifdef where you can. Okay > I am very encouraged by this series as it genuinely unifies EFI with > DM. Re your comment about wrapper code, I suspect that might become > clearer once the data structures are unified. Your comments also encourage me very much. Thanks! -Takahiro Akashi > Regards, > Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
