This is why reference platforms make sense as the canonical example. There's a clear mission to create / support U-Boot with the EFI extensions defined by EBBR.
David
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 19:55 Dong Wei Dong.Wei@arm.com wrote:
Agree
- DW
-----Original Message----- From: Olof Johansson olof@lixom.net Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:58 AM To: Dong Wei Dong.Wei@arm.com Cc: David Rusling david.rusling@linaro.org; wmills@ti.com; boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss < arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR - Fog, Edge and Device
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Dong Wei Dong.Wei@arm.com wrote:
There may be a need for making EBBR more aware to the community.
I ran into a case at Computex last week. Ambedded makes storage servers
using Marvell SoCs. Even though Marvell provides UEFI code for the SoC, Ambedded chose to do the uboot anyways.
I think a relevant distinction here is that if someone wants to still do u-boot, they should strongly consider using a version new enough to implement EBBR interfaces such as UEFI services. On price-sensitive devices where you want to optimize flash BOM cost, skipping Tianocore *can* have cost impact, but if the interfaces are kept compatible that should be just fine.
As always, if the SoC vendor provides a reference implementation for their platforms such that doing the right thing is also doing the easiest thing when making a derivative product design, everybody wins.
-Olof IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.