[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51705034.4030101@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:57:40 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
CC: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"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>,
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 04/18/2013 12:55 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 05:44 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>> The machine I developed the BGRT changes on kept the image below the 4G
>>>> mark, inside one of the memory regions reclaimable via
>>>> ExitBootServices().
>>>
>>> Well, highmem is >= ~896M. Do you have a machine with BGRT over the
>>> highmem mark?
>>
>> I don't have the machine in question anymore, and I don't remember.
>
> Sorry, I should have been more clear - having a BGRT image in highmem
> has never worked for the reasons I outlined in my previous mail. What I
> was really asking was: is it OK that we now explicitly don't support
> that case? I'm working on the assumption that it's pointless writing
> support for the BGRT in highmem because no such i386 machines exist. If
> the BGRT code works for your i386 right now, the address isn't in highmem.
>
> If there are machines out there that would require us to write support,
> it's probably worth doing now instead of punting. But it sounds like
> there aren't any.
>
I suspect if there aren't any yet there WILL be.
-hpa
--
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