6932 2014-11-05 09:24:22 +0000 core-image-sato, core-image-sato-sdk for valleyisland-64bit is not booting on bakersport and Baleybay CRB fab3 board. 2015-02-23 00:06:36 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime BSPs bsps-meta-intel 1.6.1 Other x86_64 RESOLVED INVALID Medium critical 1.6.3 1 errahul1106 errahul1106 dvhart nitin.a.kamble rebecca.swee.fun.chang sgw tom.zanussi --- --- Don't know oldest_to_newest 46756 0 errahul1106 2014-11-05 09:24:22 +0000 I have tried to core-image-sato and core-image-sato-sdk for valleyisland-64 on bayley bay fab3(green) and bakersport (red) on daisy relaease of yocto and meta-intel. The genrated hddimg image is not booting. I also tried the pre-build hddimg given with the link https://www.yoctoproject.org/downloads/bsps/daisy161/valley-island-64-bit Download valleyisland-1.0-daisy-1.6.1.tar.bz2 also. your valleyisland-32 is working fine with both of the board. I hope there is a problem in boot loader. 46800 1 nitin.a.kamble 2014-11-06 15:50:57 +0000 Darren, Can you comment on this? Possibly Rahul should be using the intel-corei7-64 BSP instead. Nitin 46900 2 errahul1106 2014-11-10 14:24:31 +0000 I want to hint you regarding this bug. I have tried to replace the bootx64.efi(boot loader of 64-bit valleyisland) with bootia32.efi(boot loader of 32-bit valleyisland). then the 64-bit image is working fine. 47878 3 dvhart 2015-01-13 04:19:32 +0000 Rahul, generally speaking you need to match firmware 32/64 bit with the payload 32/64 bit. If you were unable to execute bootx64.efi from your EFI firmware, but bootia32.efi did work, it most likely means you mismatched the 32/64 bit BSP with your platform. You probably need valleyisland-32 for those systems. You may, alternatively, use the meta-intel core BSPs, either intel-corei7-64 for 64bit platforms, or intel-core2-32 for 32 bit platforms. Assigning to Rebecca as valley-island is one of IOTG BSPs. 47879 4 rebecca.swee.fun.chang 2015-01-13 04:37:35 +0000 Hi Rahul Kumar, Darren is correct. In addition, for Valley Island BSP, there are 2 BIOS version (32/64-bit) that we used to validate our images. The information od BIOS we are using/supporting can be obtained from our sales team. Some notes for the BIOS is, we need to match 32-bit BIOS version to the 32-bit image because it is relying on the bootloader (bootia32.efi) for UEFI boot. Same applies to 64-bit. For 64-bit UEFI boot, it requires bootx64.efi which is supported by 64-bit UEFI BIOS. Your scenario is, your BIOS is 32-bit, and it require bootia32.efi to boot. This is why you are able to boot after replacing the bootloader file. But this is not the right way to do it. You can try to update the platform BIOS to a 64-bit UEFI supported BIOS to verify the 64-bit pre-built image. Thank you. Regards, Rebecca 48939 5 sgw 2015-02-19 16:05:32 +0000 Can you please confirm that you are using the matched version of the correct BIOS and image (either 32bt or 64 bit). 48943 6 errahul1106 2015-02-19 16:26:47 +0000 It was my mistake that I was not aware about the different BIOS versions available with baytrail boards. Now its all working fine with their respective BIOS ie. 32 bit and 64 bit. I am very sorry for this and thanks to all. 48980 7 rebecca.swee.fun.chang 2015-02-23 00:06:36 +0000 I will close this bug for now. Marked the status as Invalid. Thanks all.