On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 04/18/2014 09:35 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 03:55:48PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
From: Rob Herring robh@kernel.org
CONFIG_API is needed for u-boot apps such as grub2, so enable it for distro config.
Cc: Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us Signed-off-by: Rob Herring robh@kernel.org
This breaks a number of boards that have opted in to the distro config. The full list is: whistler trimslice beaver tec paz00 ventana cardhu harmony dalmore plutux medcom-wide rpi_b venice2 colibri_t20_iris tec-ng seaboard
How do you guys want to handle this? I can apply now and they can be fixed up later, or I can wait for fixup patches to come out and apply them all at once. Thanks!
I've sent patches that solve all the build problems on Tegra with CONFIG_API enabled.
That said, I still conceptually object to config_distro_defaults.h enabling API support in order to support grub; I believe the distros need to get together and nail down a *single* boot mechanism to standardize upon, rather than having Fedora support BootloaderSpec, Ubuntu/Linaro(?) support Grub, something else support LILO, something else support UEFI, etc. Without this, we'll force every U-Boot binary to be bloated with all kinds of redundant code. Having a single standard mechanism was always the point of config_distro_defaults.h in my mind.
BTW, does Grub work well for you? I did try it many months ago, and found:
Huh, why would I use grub. I just boot my kernels directly. :) Enabling this for grub was something requested for highbank that I'm just getting around to.
a) It was excruciatingly slow, to the point of not being useful.
b) The binary had hard-coded memory layout, and hence couldn't be generic across multiple boards, since SoCs put their RAM in different places, boards have differing amounts of RAM, etc. This kinda defeats the whole purpose, since distros would need to install board-specific Grub binaries. Perhaps this could be solved similarly to the kernel's CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT?
Uggg, That certainly sounds pointless to use.
Leif, comments?
If we really need Grub support, wouldn't it be better to have U-Boot parse and execute grub.cfg, just like it does extlinux.cfg?
I don't disagree, but at least some distros keep saying they must have grub itself. That's why grub on u-boot was done in the first place.
Rob