Before UEFI 2.6a and 2.7, the behavior is unpredictable, our *CODE* chose to
return EFI_NOT_FOUND.
"Passing in a VariableName parameter that is neither a Null-terminated string
nor a value that was returned on the previous call to
GetNextVariableName() may also produce unpredictable results."
Report Status Code to indicate BDS starts attempting booting
from the UEFI BootOrder list.
Cc: Ruiyu Ni
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi
---
MdeModulePkg/Universal/BdsDxe/BdsEntry.c | 7 ++-
1 file
According to new PI spec, add new Status Code to indicate BDS starts
attempting booting from the UEFI BootOrder list.
Cc: Ruiyu Ni
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi
---
MdePkg/Include/Pi/PiStatusCode.h | 3
According to new PI spec, add new Status Code for BDS when
attempting booting form the UEFI BootOrder list.
Dandan Bi (2):
MdePkg/PiStatusCode: Add new Status Code for BDS when attempting
BootOrder
MdeModulePkg/BdsDxe: Report Status Code when booting from BootOrder
list
Can you add more comments here to describe the purpose is to change the return
status
from Not Found to Invalid Parameter, and the reason of choosing Invalid
Parameter?
Thanks/Ray
> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:41 PM
> To: Ni, Ruiyu
It is to return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER when the input VariableName and
VendorGuid are not a valid variable to search next variable.
It is added from UEFI 2.7 spec.
Before the spec change, the code is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND at that case.
After the spec change, EFI_NOT_FOUND seemingly is reserved
I understand your point.
But I do think it hurts readability.
BTW, what does the below change does?
if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
+if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
+ //
+ // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
GUID of an existing
System can still boot to shell and OS successfully after EFI variable
deletion/corruption.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Guo Mang
---
Platform/BroxtonPlatformPkg/BuildBios.bat | 11 +-
Ray,
The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I don't think
it hurts readability although it may not bring performance improvement, it
depends on how many variables in variable region, how many times of calling
GetNextVariableName, and how fast of GetNextVariableName.
Hi David,
The UEFI spec defines the format of an NVMe device node, I think the
driver (maybe on the NVME option rom) that produces the device path for
the NVME device should get updated to follow the spec.
For those vendor defined paths, I think the DevicePathLib will only dump
the hex of device
Patch has been pushed at 45cfcd8dccf84b8abbc1d6f587fedb5d2037ec79. :)
Thanks,
Star
-Original Message-
From: Zeng, Star
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:20 AM
To: Amit Kumar ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Tian, Feng ; Gao, Liming
Change BIOS version.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: lushifex
---
Platform/BroxtonPlatformPkg/BiosId.env | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Platform/BroxtonPlatformPkg/BiosId.env
Reviewed-by: Star Zeng
-Original Message-
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Amit
Kumar
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 6:10 PM
To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Tian, Feng ; Gao, Liming ;
13 matches
Mail list logo