[BUG] issues with new bootflow, uefi and virtio
Vincent Stehlé
vincent.stehle at arm.com
Tue Apr 11 14:00:24 CEST 2023
On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 05:31:06PM +1200, Simon Glass wrote:
..
> > When combined with the patch from Mathew[1], it does indeed repair the case of
> > efi boot with two virtio disks, specifically when the first virtio disk is the
> > one we want to boot from.
> > FWIW, the system will not boot when I invert the two virtio disks.
>
> Is this because it only uses the first virtio device? You could check
> your boot_targets variable. With standard boot you can use 'virtio'
> instead of 'vritio0' and it will find any virtio devices.
Hi Simon,
Thank you for the tips; I did not know that you could use a generic `virtio' or
a more specific `virtio0' specification in boot_targets.
By default the boot_targets variable does indeed contain the generic `virtio' in
my case.
Quick tests matrix:
disk image virtio
(#num) blk index
boot_targets (#30) 0 (#31) 1
------------ ------- -------
virtio ok FAIL
virtio0 ok (fail)
virtio1 (fail) ok
This is with both patches, on Qemu.
The fails between () are expected.
I find it interesting that specifying `virtio1' does work when the bootable
image is on the second virtio disk, while auto-detection with `virtio' does not
seem to:
virtio1
~~~~~~~
=> setenv boot_targets virtio1
=> boot
Scanning for bootflows in all bootdevs
Seq Method State Uclass Part Name Filename
--- ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- --------
Scanning global bootmeth 'efi_mgr':
Scanning bootdev 'virtio-blk#31.bootdev':
0 efi ready virtio 1 virtio-blk#31.bootdev.par efi/boot/bootaa64.efi
** Booting bootflow 'virtio-blk#31.bootdev.part_1' with efi
Using prior-stage device tree
Missing TPMv2 device for EFI_TCG_PROTOCOL
Booting /efi\boot\bootaa64.efi
virtio
~~~~~~
=> setenv boot_targets virtio
=> boot
Scanning for bootflows in all bootdevs
Seq Method State Uclass Part Name Filename
--- ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- --------
Scanning global bootmeth 'efi_mgr':
Scanning bootdev 'virtio-blk#30.bootdev':
No more bootdevs
--- ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- --------
(0 bootflows, 0 valid)
The messages seem to indicate that virtio #31 / 1 was not even considered when
specifying `virtio'.
(Note that I have edited the logs a bit to avoid wrapping lines.)
Best regards,
Vincent.
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Vincent.
> >
> > [1]: https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2023-April/514527.html
>
> Regards,
> Simon
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list