On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:56:24PM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > So, let me first add, the comment can be removed as needed. Comments > offered only for clarification.
Noted, thanks. > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:40 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > But what do you mean UEFI "consumes" initrd= ? > > What I mean is, there are bootloaders that will, if they see initrd= > in the command line, remove it: the kernel will never see it. I'm picky here because, well, there's a whole lot of moving parts in the pre-kernel world. In a strict sense, "UEFI" doesn't do anything with the kernel but based on hpa's comments I assume that at least the in-kernel UEFI stub does what Documentation/x86/booting.rst suggests to do and consumes initrd=/file just like "initrd /file" in extlinux.conf, etc do. And since the EFI stub is cross-platform, it's worth noting this too. > > I guess looking at > > Documentation/x86/boot.rst is where treating initrd= as a file that > > should be handled and ramdisk_image / ramdisk_size set came from. I do > > wonder what happens in the case of ARM/ARM64 + UEFI without device tree. > > it is possible that the initrd= argument will not be seen by the > kernel. That's my understanding. Will this be a problem if so? It > would be for me :-) > > > And it doesn't provide any sort of link / context to the > > boot loader specification project or similar that explains the cases > > when a non-filename "initrd=" would reasonably (or unreasonably but > > happens in reality) be removed. > > But it unreasonably happens as I learned the hard way :-) > > Anyway, thanks Tom, I have no objections to whatever you all feel is > best to do with that comment. It was a failed attempt on my part to > explain the state of things :-) Booting up the kernel is quite the "fun" area indeed. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
