On 22.10.18 06:37, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:46:36AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> 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 ;). > > More typing! > >>> or allowing "-" as empty fdt, >>> >>> => bootefi bootmgr - 1 > > (Please notice that this is NOT "-1.") > I also like this one as it maintains upward-compatibility: > bootefi bootmgr [<fdt addr> [<boot id>]] > >>> Otherwise, a new sub command? >>> >>> => bootefi run 1, or >>> => efi(shell) run 1 > > Well, if you stick to "setenv -e"-like syntax, how about > => run -e Boot0001 > > Given that "run" takes an environment variable, this syntax > is perfectly fit to U-boot, isn't it?
Ooooh, that is an amazing suggestion! And "run -e" without an explicit target could just invoke efibootmgr directly, looping through the BootOrder. > >>> # Discussing UI is a fun or mess. > > # I hope that this is not fruitless discussion. > >> Yeah :(. What we really need would be that "bootefi bootmgr" becomes >> "efiboot". But that would be even more confusing ;). > > So I think that we should not add anything more to "bootefi bootmgr" > to extend functionality. > >> 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. > > IMO, "boot*" variants are already a mess. > >> 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 ;). > > Well, BootXXXX is quite UEFI-specific and people who are not familiar > with UEFI need to consult UEFI specification anyway and this means, to me, > that UEFI shell's similarity would be favorable. > (See "setvar" syntax, not mine but UEFI shell's, which can be > quite different and complicated.) Well my thinking there is that if someone likes the UEFI Shell, they may as well just run it :). Alex > > Does anybody else have any opinions? > > Thanks, > -Takahiro Akashi > >> >> Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
