Re: GSoC Proposal
Marvin Häuser <mhaeuser@...>
CC Nate (GSoC admin)toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
CC Steven (task mentor)
CC edk2-devel (you picked the logically correct list, but it’s pretty dead and barely anyone reads it)
Out of mere curiosity, why did you pick this item? :)
I feel like there is more to your proposal than is given on the task page. Why is it “ELF first”, is it something useful for UefiPayloadPkg or Linux somehow?
As for supporting it in the EDK II core, I personally feel like this is much too late. The entire ecosystem is centred around protocols (and the services tables) already. “Loading only when necessary” doesn’t sound very important to me personally, as the firmware image is already supposed to be fairly minimal. I’d rather like to see the introduction of “lazy protocols” (which do not require any new fundamental concepts), e.g., for network and HID stuff like mice and touch, which go through the driver connection procedure only when a protocol function is called for the first time. A big issue with this of course are non-function pointers in the protocol structure.
This will not only require a dynamic linker in the firmware to maybe double the size of the already disgusting and vastly unmaintained PE loader, it will also require further format conversion from ELF and Mach-O, both of which already are buggy (the former much more so than the latter). This is a tremendous effort in my opinion and introducing partial support will cause more awkward toolchain limitations.
Can you please outline why this (in my opinion, big) tradeoff is worth it? Just curious. :)
On 13. Apr 2022, at 03:05, Ada Christine <adachristine18@...> wrote: