[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E99CBA9F97C3D149AA6B19ED2E277C9B01921744@BY2PRD0510MB365.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 04:37:29 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
"matt.fleming@...el.com" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rtc-efi: register rtc-efi device when EFI enabled
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists