> From: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:01:01 +0200 > > The EBBR specification prescribes that we should have either an ACPI table > or a device tree but not both. Let us enforce this condition in the > `bootefi` command.
Why? While I agree that it would be good if U-Boot would provide a device tree I think you're needlessly restricting users here. Many EFI bootloaders (GRUB, OpenBSD's bootloader on arm/arm64) have a way to load a device tree afterwards. This diff makes it impossible to use that capability on systems where U-Boot doesn't provide a device tree. Such a system obviously wouldn't be compliant with the EBBR specification. But together with an appropriate bootloader it could still run an EBBR compliant OS. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
