[syslinux] Syslinux Aarch64 porting

Michael Davies nemykal at nrv-linux.io
Wed Aug 10 06:02:39 PDT 2016

Hi Steve,

I don't know if syslinux is x86-only by design, or just by circumstance. 
Simply put, I like syslinux because it's simple and it works. I know 
that once I get it working, I can just edit a config file and put 
kernels/initrds in the right place.

Grub2 is trash[1], and UEFI is awkward and uncomfortable to actually use 
- in that I have to currently have my kernel and initrd on the EFI ESP 
partition to boot. And then efibootmgr gives me such readable output 
like: Boot0002* Arch STUB 
.r.w. .d.e.b.u.g. .n.o.s.p.l.a.s.h. 

[1] try editing grub.cfg vs a typical syslinux.cfg - yes I know it's not 
meant to be edited manually, no that doesn't help me when I don't yet 
have a bootable system to run grub-install from. Grub2 is needlessly 

I honestly cannot see why someone would *not* want syslinux to be 
portable? It's nice to have options.



On 10/08/2016 10:49 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Michael Davies wrote:
>> Is there any information available on porting Syslinux to 64bit ARM?
>> Specifically, I have a Cavium ThunderX board (Gigabyte R120-T30) which
>> boots using UEFI - b2b.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5864#ov
>> I'd be very interested in getting this to work, as currently the only
>> option for booting on this platform is Grub 2 or EFI Stub. If anyone can
>> point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated.
>> I'm keen to contribute to work on this port myself as well, but I want
>> to hear if any other work on Aarch64 / arm64 has been done.
> I'm very curious - what do you expect to gain from porting an x86-only
> bootloader to a new platform when there are already functional
> portable alternatives?

More information about the Syslinux mailing list