From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751726AbaCCBrm (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:47:42 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:48789 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751084AbaCCBrl (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:47:41 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <5313DC82.7030802@linux.intel.com> References: <53129256.6060704@zytor.com> <20140302022334.GA1131@srcf.ucam.org> <53130A46.1010801@linux.intel.com> <5313AD1B.6050403@linux.intel.com> <20140302222654.GA17838@srcf.ucam.org> <5313B47B.6020402@linux.intel.com> <20140302231154.GA20891@srcf.ucam.org> <5313BD5A.1040409@linux.intel.com> <20140303000759.GA25085@srcf.ucam.org> <5313CA6B.7020505@zytor.com> <5313DC82.7030802@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot sequence loop From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:47:10 -0800 To: "Li, Aubrey" , Matthew Garrett CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , "alan@linux.intel.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len.Brown@intel.com, Adam Williamson Message-ID: <51d8c7f9-656d-48ad-8b82-0e4302c4b827@email.android.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org We are not removing BOOT_BIOS... whether or not we have it on buy default is another matter. On March 2, 2014 5:36:02 PM PST, "Li, Aubrey" wrote: >On 2014/3/3 8:18, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 03/02/2014 04:07 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:23:06AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: >>> >>>> Windows doesn't do because there is no 32/64 mixed windows and EFI >on >>>> the planet. Since the silicon is actually 64 bit, I failed to see a >>>> reason to refuse the user install 64bit linux on it. So we >encountered a >>>> case windows didn't. >>> >>> And we'll call the 32 bit EFI call, so what's the problem? > >No problem after Fleming's mixed mode is landed. > >>> >>>> So, you didn't mention BOOT_BIOS, if you don't want to add >BOOT_BIOS, >>>> and you also don't like DMI entires, how do you want to deal with >the >>>> machines requiring BOOT_BIOS to reboot their machine? >>> >>> I was planning on ignoring them. >>> > >Well, I'm fine to ignore BOOT_BIOS because I don't have one in hand, >but >I'll bother you again with the same logic when I have one, heihei. >Do you need me to refine the patch to remove BOOT_BIOS? > >> >> I suspect we'll never get away from having a DMI table, if nothing >else >> because we can't test enough, but the current situation where it >seems >> like we need to add every since Dell box to the DMI table is clearly >broken. >> >> -hpa >> >Agree, definitely. > >Thanks, >-Aubrey -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.