On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 07:11:46PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 11/19/19 4:22 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:35:57AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
With an implementation for allow_unaligned() available for arm1136 and arm1176 UEFI can be supported on these architectures.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de
lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig index 2f40e485ef..7984d6f42d 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig @@ -1,8 +1,10 @@ config EFI_LOADER bool "Support running UEFI applications" depends on OF_LIBFDT && ( \
ARM && (SYS_CPU = armv7 || \SYS_CPU = armv8) || \
ARM && (SYS_CPU = arm1136 || \SYS_CPU = arm1176 || \SYS_CPU = armv7 || \SYS_CPU = armv8) || \My concern is that while it's goodk and important we're correcting the dependencies for ARM, non-ARMv7 hardware is much more legacy than new design and we maybe don't want to have it enabled by default there. One of the biggest pieces of feedback I have gotten over the overall EFI support is that it being on by default on legacy systems causes a lot of unwanted size growth. Does Kconfig work sanely with something like: default y if !ARM default y if ARM && (SYS_CPU = armv7 || SYS_CPU == arv8) ? Then we could allow other older ARM systems to enable it still and now function (again, good work) without the size growth by default. Thanks!
These are the only ARM11 boards:
evb-ast2500_defconfig flea3_defconfig integratorcp_cm1136_defconfig mx31pdk_defconfig mx35pdk_defconfig rpi_0_w_defconfig rpi_defconfig woodburn_defconfig woodburn_sd_defconfig
Which one poses a problem?
Of those, I would assume the two Pi boards might opt-in, maybe the aspeed board and not the rest.