>
> Wow:
>
>   efi0 at bios0: UEFI 2.0
>
> that is ancient.  I also found
>
>   https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26502_01/html/E28978/hardw.html
>
> so clearly the UEFI BIOS has bugs.  Using UEFI instead of the legacy
> BIOS on a machine that old may not be the wisest choice.  But I think
> we can just avoid using UEFI in the kernel in this case.
>
> Diff below should fix it.
>
> ok?
>
>
> Index: arch/amd64/amd64/efi_machdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/efi_machdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -p -r1.1 efi_machdep.c
> --- arch/amd64/amd64/efi_machdep.c      16 Oct 2022 15:03:39 -0000      1.1
> +++ arch/amd64/amd64/efi_machdep.c      19 Oct 2022 17:18:19 -0000
> @@ -112,6 +112,10 @@ efi_attach(struct device *parent, struct
>                 printf(".%d", minor % 10);
>         printf("\n");
>
> +       /* Early implementations can be buggy. */
> +       if (major < 2 || (major == 2 && minor < 10))
> +               return;
> +
>         if ((bios_efiinfo->flags & BEI_64BIT) == 0)
>                 return;
>
> Index: arch/arm64/dev/efi_machdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/arm64/dev/efi_machdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -u -p -r1.2 efi_machdep.c
> --- arch/arm64/dev/efi_machdep.c        12 Oct 2022 13:39:50 -0000      1.2
> +++ arch/arm64/dev/efi_machdep.c        19 Oct 2022 17:18:19 -0000
> @@ -118,6 +118,10 @@ efi_attach(struct device *parent, struct
>                 printf(".%d", minor % 10);
>         printf("\n");
>
> +       /* Early implementations can be buggy. */
> +       if (major < 2 || (major == 2 && minor < 10))
> +               return;
> +
>         efi_map_runtime(sc);
>
>         /*
>

Heh, yeah. :-) I figured I'd give it a go with UEFI on this old beast
and it worked without that kind of issue until Monday of this week.
I'll see how I can apply this diff if possible since I can't boot at
all, unless it will be included in an upcoming snapshot.

Thanks again.

-Claudio

Reply via email to