22 Apr
2019
22 Apr
'19
8:37 p.m.
From: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:01:01 +0200
The EBBR specification prescribes that we should have either an ACPI table or a device tree but not both. Let us enforce this condition in the `bootefi` command.
Why?
While I agree that it would be good if U-Boot would provide a device tree I think you're needlessly restricting users here. Many EFI bootloaders (GRUB, OpenBSD's bootloader on arm/arm64) have a way to load a device tree afterwards. This diff makes it impossible to use that capability on systems where U-Boot doesn't provide a device tree.
Such a system obviously wouldn't be compliant with the EBBR specification. But together with an appropriate bootloader it could still run an EBBR compliant OS.