[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305128379.30435.171.camel@i7.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:39:38 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Youquan Song <youquan.song@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Song, Youquan" <youquan.song@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"hpa@...ux.intel.com" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@...el.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Liu, Kent" <kent.liu@...el.com>,
"Sankaran, Rajesh" <rajesh.sankaran@...el.com>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, vt-d: enable x2apic opt out
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 04:39 +0100, Youquan Song wrote:
> The VT-d 1.3 version specification add this new feature because OEM
> request it. If OEM platform has issues to support x2apic or BIOS is
> buggy to support x2apic, there is alternative way to opt out x2apic.
Why not just *fix* the BIOS? Why must we hard-code workarounds into the
"hardware" specification to allow them to get away without doing their
job competently? This is madness.
Can't we just line up the substandard BIOS engineers against the wall,
and shoot them?
We should get Coreboot working on our new hardware as a matter of
course, to catch up with our main competitor and ensure that our
customers are not held hostage by these morons.
--
dwmw2
--
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