[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1y7dr3xha.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:39:13 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, pjones@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 -v4] x86_64 EFI runtime service support: EFI basic runtime service support
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:55:44 -0600
>> ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think there is a compelling case for us to use any efi
>>> services at this time
>>
>> I would almost agree with this if it wasn't for the 1 call that OS
>> installers need to tell EFI about bootloader stuff; I've cc'd Peter
>> Jones since he'll know better what OS installers need; if they don't
>> need it after all...
>>
>
> Well, the original motivation for all of this was to enable implementation of a
> EFI framebuffer (UGA/GOP). Now, you can say what you want about EFI (and I
> definitely have my opinion on it), but that seems legitimate to me.
To be very clear. I think we need the EFI boot parameters but
we certainly don't runtime services to implement an EFI framebuffer.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists