From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936020AbZDJLt4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:49:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764340AbZDJLti (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:49:38 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54556 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760799AbZDJLtg (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:49:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:49:01 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pavel Machek Cc: Avi Kivity , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@linux.intel.com, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [tip:x86/setup] x86, setup: "glove box" BIOS calls -- infrastructure Message-ID: <20090410114901.GJ21506@elte.hu> References: <49DE7F79.4030106@zytor.com> <20090410080444.GC16512@elf.ucw.cz> <20090410103934.GA21506@elte.hu> <20090410104648.GA31516@elf.ucw.cz> <20090410112546.GD21506@elte.hu> <20090410113824.GA18823@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090410113824.GA18823@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pavel Machek wrote: > > "BIOS people" are operating in a completely different culture. > > Time to market, hardware workarounds, short-term > > differentiators, secret bootstrap sequences and code compactness > > are king in that space. Code quality is dead last in the list. I > > strongly doubt that given the radically conflicting priorities a > > reasonable dialogue can be established. > > "BIOS people" control stuff like SMM mode. We can workaround some > BIOS problems, but definitely not all of them. > > For servers, I guess Linux has enough of market share that we > could certify known-good servers (and maybe warn against > known-bad). Server space is somewhat less of a problem BIOS quality wise: the design cycles are longer, the features are more complex and the profit margins are higher - which all results in saner practices and more care. They even do server BIOS fixes for Linux. The problem are the "Does it boot Windows? Ship it, forget it, buldoze the factory" kind of desktop operations. Ingo