Akashi-san
[...]
"\n"#endif
"efidebug devices\n"" - show UEFI devices\n" "efidebug drivers\n" " - show UEFI drivers\n" "efidebug dh\n"-- 2.37.2
FWIW the clean does make sense to me. First of all displaying handles + device is more convenient and it's going to become even more important as the EFI<->DM integration moves on. Not to mention that efidebug is a misnomer (now) it is used for *configuring* boot options.
It's not true. From the beginning, it was seen as a "debugging" tool. In fact, when I implemented it at the first time, I named it efishell and later proposed alternative names, efiutil and even eficonfig(!) but all were rejected by then-maintainer simply because he saw the command to be a debugging tool.
That's why I said *now*. It was a debugging tool way back. Right now we use it to configure the efibootmgr and that's why I proposed splitting efidebug and and 'efi' command way back.
This positioning has not been changed since then.
We should try to make the command as lightweight as possible, since people are literally expected to include it in their binary if they want to boot via EFI
I believe that Kojima-san's eficonfig can fill the requirements as we all expect.
Not really. What about CI tools that rely on the cmd line to test the efibootmgr? We should force all of them to convert to a CI testing that can interpret menus?
Cheers /Ilias
-Takahiro Akashi
Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org
Regards /Ilias