On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 02:53:48PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> Right, this clearly needs a fix.
> >>
> >> > Heavily inspired by the existing code for x86.
> >>
> >> Mmm. I would much prefer if we could break out the efi test in a
> >> separate helper function. And clean it up while we're at it.
> >
> >fyi, I made an attempt at this a while back:
> >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2018-08/msg00082.html
> >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2018-08/msg00081.html
> >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2018-08/msg00083.html
>
> Arg, sorry - never saw those or I'd have commented already. :-/
>
> Looking now:
>
> * I'm not sure I'd bother with the is_efi() change in the
> Windows-specific code but meh. :-)
>
> * You're only allowing arm-efi as a default when is_virt() is
> true. While I'm also *initially* caring about armhf VMs myself, I
> think that changes in recent U-Boot mean that arm-efi is a sensible
> option on bare metal too?
My take is that at some point _after_ the next release of GRUB, we
should consider switching the default for arm. And at some later point
we should probably nuke the U-Boot port completely.
The U-Boot API is not properly maintained, and the UEFI API in U-Boot
is.
/
Leif
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
