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 <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org>
> >---
> > 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.
-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
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
