On 18.10.18 07:48, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:43:22AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> On 17.10.18 09:32, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> With this patch applied, we will be able to selectively execute >>> an EFI application by specifying a load option, say "-1" for Boot0001, >>> "-2" for Boot0002 and so on. >>> >>> => bootefi bootmgr -1 <fdt addr> >> >> I don't think -1 is very good user experience :). How about >> => bootefi bootmgr Boot0001 <fdt addr> > > It looks like u-boot's run command with six more characters! > How about this: > > => bootefi bootmgr #1 <fdt addr>
So what is the problem with making it Boot0001? That way at least the variable name is consistent across the board ;). > or allowing "-" as empty fdt, > > => bootefi bootmgr - 1 > > Otherwise, a new sub command? > > => bootefi run 1, or > => efi(shell) run 1 > > # Discussing UI is a fun or mess. Yeah :(. What we really need would be that "bootefi bootmgr" becomes "efiboot". But that would be even more confusing ;). So the whole rationale of why "bootefi" is the way it is today is that it's trying to lean on the existing "bootm", "booti", "bootz" etc syntax as much as it can. In other words, it's trying to fit into the U-Boot ecosystem much rather than the existing edk2 one. I would like to keep following that path going forward. Whenever there is an option between "U-Boot like" and "edk2 like" I would always opt for the "U-Boot like" user experience, because if they want edk2 they may as well use edk2 ;). Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
