From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: AKASHI Takahiro Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:30:09 +0900 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC v2 00/15] dm, efi: integrate efi objects into DM In-Reply-To: References: <20190208081542.2813-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20190212083008.GO20286@linaro.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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 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