On 5/14/19 10:01 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 08:27:13AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 5/14/19 6:58 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
If a user defines BootNext but not BootOrder and loading from BootNext
fails, you will see only a message like this:
BootOrder not defined
This may confuse a user. Adding an error message will be helpful.
Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <[email protected]>
---
lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c
index 7bf51874c1c1..6a4a478473c3 100644
--- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c
+++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c
@@ -215,6 +215,8 @@ efi_status_t efi_bootmgr_load(efi_handle_t *handle)
ret = try_load_entry(bootnext, handle);
if (ret == EFI_SUCCESS)
return ret;
+ printf("Loading from Boot%04X failed, falling back
into BootOrder...\n",
Seeing an error makes sense.
When multiple entries in BootOder fail your would write:
Loading from Boot0000 failed, falling back into BootOrder...\
Loading from Boot0001 failed, falling back into BootOrder...\
Loading from Boot0002 failed, falling back into BootOrder...\
Loading from Boot0003 failed, falling back into BootOrder...\
Are you sure?
I don't believe we will see such repeated messages because
"Loading from Boot%04X failed" message will be only shown
when evaluating BootNext.
Yes, but printing a message here and none when BootOrder entries fail
makes no sense either.
So replacing the debug() statement in try_load_entry() by a
printf("Loading from %ls failed\n", varname);
would my preferred choice.
Regards
Heinrich
-Takahiro Akashi
As a user I would wonder why you would fall back to BootOrder multiple
times.
I think "Loading from Boot%04X failed" conveys all the information the
user needs and is less distracting.
Best regards
Heinrich
+ bootnext);
}
} else {
printf("Deleting BootNext failed\n");
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
