The current message can be misleading, because it seems to suggest
that no firmware of the requested type is available on the system.
What actually happens most of the time, however, is that despite
having multiple firmwares of the right type to choose from, none
of them is suitable because of lacking some specific feature or
being incompatible with some setting that the user has explicitly
enabled.
Providing an error message that describes exactly the problem is
not feasible, since we would have to list each candidate along
with the reason why we rejected it, which would get out of hand
quickly.
As a small but hopefully helpful improvement over the current
situation, reword the error message to make it clearer that the
culprit is not necessarily the firmware type, but rather the
overall domain configuration.
Suggested-by: Michael Kjörling <7d1340278307@ewoof.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
Most of these are just additional coverage, but a few demonstrate
bugs in libvirt:
* firmware-manual-efi-nvram-template-nonstandard sees the NVRAM
template path, which was explicitly provided in the XML,
being overridden by the firmware selection machinery;
* firmware-auto-efi-rw* and firmware-manual-efi-rw-legacy-paths
lose the loader.readonly=no setting and thus behave
differently than requested;
* firmware-manual-efi-loader-path-nonstandard fails because an
NVRAM path doesn't get generated.
We're going to address all these issues with upcoming changes.
Note that the firmware-auto-efi-nvram-template-nonstandard
failure is expected: firmware autoselection has been enabled, but
the NVRAM template points to a custom path that's not mentioned
in any of the firmware descriptors and so it can't succeed.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
