From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 07:58:29 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 6/6] efi_loader: bootmgr: run an EFI
 application of a given load option
In-Reply-To: <20181022053735.GB11663@linaro.org>
References: <20181017073207.13150-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <20181017073207.13150-7-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <cd7be176-78b0-a8c8-6957-54a0c7f0612e@suse.de>
 <20181018054814.GI32578@linaro.org>
 <605f1838-3fb4-b225-9aec-8a49c82fabbc@suse.de>
 <20181022053735.GB11663@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <a7d67b21-feea-2eda-2d4a-9853aff67358@suse.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de



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