On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:23:55PM +0100, dann frazier wrote: >On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:42 PM Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> >wrote: >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:42:34AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> > Much like on x86, we can work out if the system is running on top of >> > EFI firmware. If so, return "arm-efi". If not, fall back to >> > "arm-uboot" as previously. >> >> 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? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel