[syslinux] UEFI/EFI booting and constantly asking for ldlinux.e64

[Nelson, Ryan M. (ARC-TI)[SGT, INC]]

On 7/2/2015 9:06 AM, Nelson, Ryan M. (ARC-TI)[SGT, INC] via Syslinux wrote:
>
> On 7/2/2015 3:42 AM, Gene Cumm wrote:
>> This has me thinking your build system has a negative interaction.
>> There should be at least 2 lines of output prior to loading
>> ldlinux.e64.  gcc less than 4.7 is one problem for the EFI binaries.
>
> This could be my problem.  I'm using gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red 
> Hat 4.4.7-11) (GCC).  I will attempt from a new version of gcc and 
> report.


So I compiled gcc version 4.9.3 and then did a make clean and make off 
of the GIT repo and still had the same response as before. Client would 
request syslinux.efi, fail and go to the next nic.

>
>>
>> I've privately sent you test binaries.

I used the test binaries and didn't notice any output difference on the 
console of the system.  The log files are as follows:

--snip messages--
Jul  2 10:51:58 aid dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 172.20.0.131 (172.20.0.1) 
from ec:f4:bb:db:2e:20 via p1p2
Jul  2 10:51:58 aid dhcpd: DHCPACK on 172.20.0.131 to ec:f4:bb:db:2e:20 
via p1p2
Jul  2 10:51:58 aid in.tftpd[18437]: connect from 172.20.0.1
Jul  2 10:51:58 aid in.tftpd[18437]: RRQ from 172.20.0.131 filename 
X86PC/linux/syslinux.efi
Jul  2 10:51:58 aid in.tftpd[18437]: tftp: client does not accept options
Jul  2 10:51:58 aid in.tftpd[18438]: connect from 172.20.0.1
Jul  2 10:51:58 aid in.tftpd[18438]: RRQ from 172.20.0.131 filename 
X86PC/linux/syslinux.efi
Jul  2 10:52:02 aid in.tftpd[18440]: connect from 172.20.0.1
Jul  2 10:52:02 aid in.tftpd[18440]: RRQ from 172.20.0.131 filename 
X86PC/linux/syslinux.efi
Jul  2 10:52:06 aid in.tftpd[18441]: connect from 172.20.0.1
Jul  2 10:52:06 aid in.tftpd[18441]: RRQ from 172.20.0.131 filename 
X86PC/linux/syslinux.efi
Jul  2 10:52:10 aid in.tftpd[18442]: connect from 172.20.0.1
Jul  2 10:52:10 aid in.tftpd[18442]: RRQ from 172.20.0.131 filename 
X86PC/linux/syslinux.efi
--end messages--

This seems to be the same response as before.

I'm not sure what to try next.