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