[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130418163325.GA6884@leaf>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:33:26 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue.lkml@...us-software.ie>,
matthew.garrett@...ula.com, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Darren Hart <darren.hart@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove warning in efi_enter_virtual_mode
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:00:26PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > No, no - we *don't* have a BGRT object at all.
> >
> > We have a completely clean memory map - but the BGRT code is causing the
> > is_ram() failure.
>
> You assume that mapping of the Boot Services regions is done purely for
> the benefit of pulling out the bgrt image - it's not, see the above
> commit log - and I assumed that you had an ACPI bgrt pointer in your
> memory map, but you don't.
>
> Darren, Josh, have you ever seen an i386 machine with a bgrt pointer? If
> not, and given that we've never seen an i386 firmware that requires the
> above workaround from Matthew, combined with the fact that there are so
> few i386 implementations out there, I'm inclined to apply the patch
> below, because anything else is a lot more work. We can address this
> properly if we ever start seeing i386 machines with bgrt pointers that
> reference highmem.
The machine I developed the BGRT changes on kept the image below the 4G
mark, inside one of the memory regions reclaimable via
ExitBootServices().
- Josh Triplett
--
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