[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090304110022.GB18165@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:00:22 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Brian Maly <bmaly@...hat.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix DMI for EFI
* Brian Maly <bmaly@...hat.com> wrote:
> New patch. Its easier I think to just move efi_init() earlier. Seems
> less risky and less drawbacks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Maly <bmaly@...hat>
>
>
> setup.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c 2009-03-03 21:24:53.000000000 -0500
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c 2009-03-03 21:26:00.000000000 -0500
> @@ -770,6 +770,9 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>
> finish_e820_parsing();
>
> + if (efi_enabled)
> + efi_init();
> +
> dmi_scan_machine();
Hm, could we ever find ourselves in the positition of having to
access the DMI strings table in the EFI init code, to implement
a quirk? I think that's quite plausible.
OTOH, with some DMI quirks in EFI tables it's a bit of a chicken
and egg problem. Can DMI strings ever be outside of EFI tables
on EFI systems?
Ingo
--
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