[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90DAAB54-CBF0-47BD-981A-FEDD26CDA0FD@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:11:25 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>, ubizjak@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
kas@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
mingo@...hat.com, nathan@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
pmladek@...e.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, tglx@...nel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: re: [PATCH v1 08/14] x86: make CONFIG_EFI_STUB unconditional
On January 22, 2026 10:57:39 AM PST, Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org> wrote:
>Hi Peter,
>
>On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:54 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> The EFI stub code is mature, most current x86 systems require EFI to
>> boot, and as it is exclusively preboot code, it doesn't affect the
>> runtime memory footprint at all.
>>
>> It makes absolutely no sense to omit it anymore, so make it
>> unconditional.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@...or.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/Kconfig | 14 ++------------
>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile | 2 --
>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/error.c | 2 --
>> arch/x86/boot/header.S | 3 ---
>> 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
>At least with QEMU the EFI protocol adds quite a lot of overhead.
>
>Is there any actual need for this?
>
>Regards,
>Simon
>
Including the EFI stub doesn't mean using EFI to boot is required.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists