On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 06:37:42PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:11 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 05:38, Heinrich Schuchardt > > <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/24/21 01:25, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > The bootflow feature provide a built-in way for U-Boot to automatically > > > > boot an Operating System without custom scripting and other > > > > customisation. > > > > This is called 'standard boot' since it provides a standard way for > > > > U-Boot to boot a distro, without scripting. > > > > > > > > It introduces the following concepts: > > > > > > > > - bootdev - a device which can hold a distro > > > > - bootmeth - a method to scan a bootdev to find bootflows (owned by > > > > U-Boot) > > > > - bootflow - a description of how to boot (owned by the distro) > > > > > > Please, describe why you are suggesting this change. > > > > > > Replacing a script by a devicetree chunk is just decreasing flexibility > > > and increasing complexity. Where is the benefit? > > > > > > I am missing a description here of where and how a boot flow shall be > > > defined. Describing some device-tree binding in patch 40/41 does not > > > replace describing the development and usage workflow. Who will provide > > > which bootflow information when? > > > > > > You still have an open discussion with Linaro about the source of > > > devicetrees. This discussion needs to be finalized before considering > > > this series. > > > > > > In my view bootflows cannot be defined in the devicetree because prior > > > firmware providing a devicetree is completely independent of any distro > > > and therefore cannot provide a distro specific bootflow. > > > > There is actually no need to use devicetree here. I think you might > > have the wrong end of the stick. It is certainly possible to add nodes > > to configure things, if needed, but it works find without any changes > > to the devicetree, as you can see from the rpi_3 patch. > > > > There are several aims with this effort: > > > > - Provide a standard way to boot anything on U-Boot, that everyone can > > plug into (distros, board vendors, people using a custom flow) > > I as a distro maintainer don't want this, we already get the "standard > way to boot" from UEFI, this just feels like another unnecessary > abstraction to that.
Right. But part of the problem is "How do I find UEFI". Something somewhere needs to be configurable to say where to look, yes? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
