Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:44:34 +0900 From: AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 08:44:02AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On March 31, 2020, 5:28 a.m. UTC Takahiro Akashi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 06:27:53AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
The UEFI spec requires support for the FAT file system.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de
lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig index 9890144d41..e10ca05549 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ config EFI_LOADER select HAVE_BLOCK_DEVICE select REGEX imply CFB_CONSOLE_ANSI
- imply FAT
- imply FAT_WRITE
Obviously, this *imply* doesn't enforce enabling FAT. If it is absolutely necessary, another measure should be taken.
If somebody wants to minimize the U-Boot size it might be necessary to do without FAT_WRITE or FAT support.
If so, Get/SetVariable won't be supported even in boot time with your patch applied. It is not practical for almost all users.
I *strongly* disagree with that statement. Most users don't care about U-Boot providing a full EFI implementation. They just want to boot their OS. The basic EFI support in U-Boot is good enough for that and for OpenBSD and some Linux distros on arm/arm64 this is the only bootpath that works. If adding more code leads to board maintainers disabling EFI support this isn't helpful.