grub-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] util/grub-mkrescue: use capitalised paths for removable EFI


From: jeffbai
Subject: Re: [PATCH] util/grub-mkrescue: use capitalised paths for removable EFI images
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:37:42 +0800

Hi Thomas,

在 2024-06-13 16:30,Thomas Schmitt via Grub-devel 写道:
Hi,

Mingcong Bai wrote:
Thanks for your review. I will now submit v2.

Well, it's not actually a review but rather pointing out a problem which
would probably cause a failure of the xorriso run, when the option
  -hfs-bless-by i /System/Library/CoreServices/boot.efi
does not find "boot.efi" because it would now be named "BOOT.EFI".
I'd expect this message and no resulting ISO image:
xorriso : FAILURE : Cannot find path '/System/Library/CoreServices/boot.efi' in loaded ISO image


Yes, good catch. I have removed this change in v2.

I'm only qualified for judging the xorriso aspect of grub-mkrescue.
The EFI aspect is mostly out of my scope. So i can't add a "Reviewed-by:".

No worries, it's appreciated nonetheless.


Two more thoughts which came to me since monday:

- Which of the platforms did you actually test ?
  (I would be astonished if GRUB_INSTALL_PLATFORM_I386_EFI and
GRUB_INSTALL_PLATFORM_X86_64_EFI were among them, because else xorriso
  should have thrown above error.)


I was testing for loongarch64-efi. As noted in the commit message, I found that Loongson's firmware incapable of handling non-upper-case EFI boot paths (which grub-install happens to evade, as it creates upper-case paths and filenames in the first place).

And yes, with the boot.efi change removed, there shouldn't be any more error - right?

- The new name "BOOTx64.EFI" isn't actually all uppercase.
I am aware that the specs indeed mention the name that way in UEFI 2.8
  table 15. But that table is obviously buggy by calling in column 1
  all three RISC-V architectures "32-bit".
So the lowercase "x" in "BOOTx64.EFI" might be an old typo in the specs.
  (It's already present in UEFI 2.4 table 12.)


Indeed, but I'm no one to argue with the specifications. I would be happy to hear what others have to say about this - should we stick with BOOTX64.EFI or use BOOTx64.EFI as ordered.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas


_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]