On 08/01/2013 01:13 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:> > I've got a patch to support LOCALBOOT -1 on EFI, which will boot the > next entry in the EFI Boot Manager (the thing configured with > efibootmgr), and which I'll commit shortly, but it doesn't support > LOCALBOOT 0. > > I'm not actually convinced that we should support LOCALBOOT 0 under EFI. > Even on BIOS, LOCALBOOT runs into problems with some machines, and the > preferred solution is to use chain.c32. >I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between "localboot -1" and "localboot 0" on EFI... they are really two different ways to ask the BIOS to do the same thing. -hpa
On Fri, 02 Aug, at 07:50:57AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:> I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between "localboot -1" > and "localboot 0" on EFI... they are really two different ways to ask > the BIOS to do the same thing.That's fine, it was just that I couldn't figure out what LOCALBOOT 0 should do on EFI. Should we just ignore the integer argument to LOCALBOOT for EFI when booting over PXE? The argument doesn't really make sense at all on EFI. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yes, I think so. The integer really means the same as EFI's ExitBootServices. Matt Fleming <matt at console-pimps.org> wrote:>On Fri, 02 Aug, at 07:50:57AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between "localboot >-1" >> and "localboot 0" on EFI... they are really two different ways to ask >> the BIOS to do the same thing. > >That's fine, it was just that I couldn't figure out what LOCALBOOT 0 >should do on EFI. Should we just ignore the integer argument to >LOCALBOOT for EFI when booting over PXE? The argument doesn't really >make sense at all on EFI.-- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.