Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your information, it leaded me to find the new dmidecode tool
support this bit.
Although I found the B.13 BIOS of Intel DQ57TM board doesn't expose this
UEFI support bit even on UEFI mode.
Anyway, it's still very useful to me to identify legacy mode!
Thanks a lot!
Joey L
Hi Jaben,
Can you help to review this patch, thanks.
Based on new spec request, when call function
GetDriverName()/RunDiagnostics()/GetControllerName(), Callers of interfaces
that require RFC 4646 language codes to retrieve a Unicode string, must use the
RFC 4647 algorithm to l
Ok, so I think I get it, it's just confusing to me as to why not when
moving to the OpenProtocol (even with BY_HANDLE_PROTOCOL which could have
been BY_APP_PROTOCOL) / CloseProtocol method, have it participate in the
DisconnectController() logic and to reject if the protocol is still open.
HandlePr
Unsubscribe
--
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies
and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of s
On 09/03/2013 11:19 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
> Rod, considering your AMD machine a given, I think it should be easiest
> to test:
> - with qemu v1.5.3 (which doesn't have 235e8982), and
> - with KVM enabled (since TCG seems broken for OVMF+CSM since qemu-1.4
>minimally), and
> - with Gerd's RP
David -
To answer your specific questions: no EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL_BY_HANDLE_PROTOCOL does
not participate in DisconnectController() and no, it cannot reject it somehow.
They are simply closed. Why? As the paragraph indicates, this was a part of EFI
1.10 (ancient history) and was worried about EFI
In the BOLD sentence below. What exactly are they trying to
say? What are the "agents"? Does this mean
EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL_BY_HANDLE_PROTOCOL also participates in the
DisconnectController() call and can reject it some how? Or is the "agent"
the application/process/whatever and it shuts
On 09/03/13 20:50, Rod Smith wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 11:19 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
>> Rod, considering your AMD machine a given, I think it should be easiest
>> to test:
>> - with qemu v1.5.3 (which doesn't have 235e8982), and
>> - with KVM enabled (since TCG seems broken for OVMF+CSM since qemu-
Hi,
So looking a the EFI_BLOCK_IO_MEDIA structure. I see the following:
SATA Drive:
Removable:0 ReadOnly:0 MediaPresent:1 LogPart:0 BlockSize:512
SCSI Drive:
Removable:0 ReadOnly:0 MediaPresent:1 LogPart:0 BlockSize:512
SATA DVD writer:
Removable:1 ReadOnly:0 MediaPresent:0 LogPart:
Hi,
Attached fixes stopch when you do something like strtoul("0", &stopch,
0) (was still pointing to the '0').
Also the unsigned forms still need to support a negative sign so added that.
"Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0"
NumericInt.c_fix_stopch_and_negsign.patch
Descri
Olivier,
Sorry for the delay.
The patch looks fine.
Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey
From: Olivier Martin [mailto:olivier.mar...@arm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:16 AM
To: Carsey, Jaben
Cc: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ShellBinPkg: Add AArch64 Binaries
Importance: Hig
Maybe SMBIOS tables.
https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/SmBios.h
UefiSpecificationSupported in in the BIOS characteristics extension byte 2 of
the BIOS Characteristics (type 0) record.
There is an SMBIOS dumper in the shell
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
On
David,
While trying to make UEFI work better with XTerm-style terminals (xterm,
gnome-terminal, konsole, etc.), I had to fix a similar issue. When you
print the last character on a line, the UEFI driver assumes that the
cursor wraps immediately to the beginning of the next line (CursorColumn
On 09/03/13 16:11, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> I'll try two workarounds (the same two that came up in the EPT thread):
> - reverting the qemu commit that enables the r/o mapping,
Reverting
commit 235e8982ad393e5611cb892df54881c872eea9e1
Author: Jordan Justen
Date: Wed May 29 01:27:26 2013 -07
Il 03/09/2013 16:22, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>> ... This problem seems to be rooted in the same read-only-memslot thing
>> that we recently encountered on an Intel host that lacks EPT: the SVM
>> reference manual also says, under 2.20.3 Permission Checks:
>>
>> When nested paging is enabled, pag
On 09/03/13 15:41, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> qemu-system-x86-29149 [002] 12270.790112: kvm_exit: reason
> EXIT_WRITE_CR0 rip 0xff23 info 0 0
> qemu-system-x86-29149 [002] 12270.790113: kvm_emulate_insn: 0:ff23:
> 0f 22 c0
> qemu-system-x86-29149 [002] 12270.790121: kvm_entry:
Il 03/09/2013 15:41, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> Short summary for Gleb and Paolo:
>
> - qemu master + kvm_intel (3.10) run both OVMF/master and
> OVMF/master+SeaBIOS/master CSM well, including booting a legacy OS
>
> - qemu master + TCG spirals into an endless loop when trying to boot a
> leg
Short summary for Gleb and Paolo:
- qemu master + kvm_intel (3.10) run both OVMF/master and
OVMF/master+SeaBIOS/master CSM well, including booting a legacy OS
- qemu master + TCG spirals into an endless loop when trying to boot a
legacy OS with OVMF+CSM -- I'm not focusing on this right now,
Hi experts,
I am trying to identify legacy mode of UEFI BIOS between pure legacy
BIOS on OS.
Simply say:
Does it possible to identify this machine is running UEFI BIOS when user
switch to legacy mode?
My original idea is through some ACPI tables, e.g. UEFI, FPDT and BGRT,
one of them show up th
Thanks Roy for the contribution, your changes have been committed to SVN
14621.
I have also taken the opportunity to remove further dead code in this file.
> -Original Message-
> From: Roy Franz [mailto:roy.fr...@linaro.org]
> Sent: 31 August 2013 03:37
> To: Olivier Martin; edk2-devel@lis
Hi Guo and Tim,
Thanks for your replies.
> [Guo] Works as expected. The unsigned driver (.efi) can't run from
EFI shell, right?
Yes right. Unsigned .efi wont load from shell while the signed .efi
loads well
> [Guo] what's your meaning of ROM here? Device ROM(OptionROM) or BIOS
ROM?
On 09/03/13 01:05, Rod Smith wrote:
> On 09/02/2013 05:32 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Maybe -enable-kvm would make a difference...
>
> It causes it to crash with a new set of error messages:
>
> KVM internal error. Suberror: 1
> emulation failure
> EAX=c033 EBX=fffcc0e4 ECX=c080 EDX=0
Hi Tim,
Yes. The bus driver Load_File2 will strip away the header. From Deb's mail, the
word "ROM" is not clear.
Hi Deb,
Could you provide more details?
a)Our signed driver (.efi) loads very well under secure boot from the EFI shell.
[Guo] Works as expected. The unsigned driver (.efi) can't
23 matches
Mail list logo
