Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:55:48 +0900
From:      Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: UEFI Booting on a Thinkpad Yoga 11e w/ Security Chip
Message-ID:  <20160319085548.0dbbf31ac1b7414931058473@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaHSKnfDyAJUEJZ=uAv1Q67yAC3Zqiu0w4i7xV=sV4bToQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CACNAnaHSKnfDyAJUEJZ=uAv1Q67yAC3Zqiu0w4i7xV=sV4bToQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi.

Is there any setting about"Secure Boot"?
  *Maybe all Windoze7 (or later) generation ThinkPads would have it.

If so, disable it INSTEAD OF "Security Chip" and try.


On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:54:46 -0500
Kyle Evans <kevans91@ksu.edu> wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> I recently purchased an older Thinkpad Yoga 11e and now I've installed
> 10.3RC2 to it. It appears that the Security Chip feature causes
> problems in attempting to boot 10.3RC2 (and a slightly older -CURRENT,
> as well, but re-tested with 10.3RC2 just for the sake of
> verification). The following output is written when attempting to boot
> from the `amd64-uefi-memstick.img`:
> 
> ==
> 
> >> FreeBSD EFI boot block
>    Loader path: /boot/loader.efi
>  LoadImage failed with error 2
>  HandleProtocol failed with error 2
>  StartImage failed with error 2
>  panic: Load failed
> 
> ==
> 
> Rebooting and disabling the security chip fixes this, and everything
> runs along nicely. Re-enabling the Security Chip after 10.3RC2 is
> installed and attempting a boot yields the slightly different (while
> slightly expected, given the above, but I'm adding this anyways):
> 
> ==
> 
> >> FreeBSD EFI boot block
>     Loader Path: /boot/loader.efi
> 
>     Initializing modules: ZFS UFS
>     Probing 4 block devices. . . . . .* done
>         ZFS found the following pools: zroot
>         UFS found no partitions
> Failed to load image provided by ZFS, size: 2033504512, (2)
> panic: No bootable partitions found!
> 
> ==
> 
> Is this expected behavior? I was under the impression that the
> "Security Chip" was largely unrelated to anything in the boot process.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> 


-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160319085548.0dbbf31ac1b7414931058473>