В Пн, 06/01/2014 в 11:34 +0000, Leif Lindholm пишет:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 12:54:36PM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > According to UEFI 2.4 specification, default boot file name on AArch64
> > is BOOTAA64.EFI (3.4.1.1 Removable Media Boot Behavior).
> >
> > ---
> > util/grub-install.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/util/grub-install.c b/util/grub-install.c
> > index 8cfe0ea..d3b9db7 100644
> > --- a/util/grub-install.c
> > +++ b/util/grub-install.c
> > @@ -1091,7 +1091,7 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[])
> > efi_file = "BOOTARM.EFI";
> > break;
> > case GRUB_INSTALL_PLATFORM_ARM64_EFI:
> > - efi_file = "BOOTAARCH64.EFI";
> > + efi_file = "BOOTAA64.EFI";
> > break;
> > default:
> > grub_util_error ("%s", _("You've found a bug"));
> > --
> > tg: (668add2..) u/aarch64-default-boot (depends on: master)
>
> Oops - muscle memory override.
> My only excuse is that current Tianocore Bds for arm* is not conformant
> to the removable media boot behaviour, so this could not currently be
> tested. Fixing this is on my to-do list for Q1.
> Could this be applied please?
>
Should not grubarm64 be changed into grubaa64 as well, even to just fit
into 8+3 name? Having them consistent makes life easier. And now is just
the right point in time before name is set in stone.
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
