From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751612Ab2L2FTs (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:19:48 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:41294 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750719Ab2L2FTq (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:19:46 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <1356712001-12198-1-git-send-email-jlee@suse.com> <3fa7337e-6bbc-4462-9704-2d8ac20a9cf2@email.android.com> <50DE03D8.9030902@zytor.com> <35da3df5-ecac-4b57-83a2-828326e5bfc3@email.android.com> <50DE3C8F.4000405@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rtc-efi: register rtc-efi device when EFI enabled From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:19:21 -0800 To: Matthew Garrett CC: "Lee, Chun-Yi" , "matt.fleming@intel.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "Lee, Chun-Yi" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Jan Beulich , Len Brown , Arjan van de Ven Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Again, we could hack a simulator and try it. Matthew Garrett wrote: >On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 16:42 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 12/28/2012 03:39 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 15:32 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >> No, that is explicitly the ordering that is excludable. >> > >> > Windows uses the UEFI time functions. The fact that they fail for >us on >> > a bunch of systems is just another symptom of our general failure >to >> > accurately mimic Windows when making runtime calls, and we should >just >> > make sure that that gets fixed rather than layering more >workarounds on >> > top. It's an embarrassment that we're still unable to deal with >> > platforms that work fine with another OS. >> > >> >> Are they using them in preference to ACPI? This seems a bit odd, >since >> one can presume that the ACPI functions were added at Microsoft's >request... > >In preference to the ACPI RTC, I haven't yet had an ACPI 5.0 TAD device >to test in comparison. -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.