On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:54 PM Steve McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:23:55PM +0100, dann frazier wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:42 PM Leif Lindholm <[email protected]> > >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. :-/
No worries. Happy to let you run with it, just wanted to share in case there was anything worth stealing. > Looking now: > > * I'm not sure I'd bother with the is_efi() change in the > Windows-specific code but meh. :-) Right, only done for consistency. > * 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? Yeah, at the time I was aware of the efi work on uboot, but it wasn't clear to me what the right build of GRUB would be in that case, so I left that for later. And later it has become! :) -dann > -- > Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] > You lock the door > And throw away the key > There's someone in my head but it's not me > _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
