[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517053EF.2030900@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:13:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Darren Hart <darren.hart@...el.com>
CC: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Bryan O'Donoghue" <bryan.odonoghue.lkml@...us-software.ie>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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 01:11 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>> I would expect that if there are any 32-bit UEFI systems that ship with
>> BGRT support (and Darren makes it sound like that's a possibility),
>> there's a realistic chance of the BGRT ending up allocated above the
>> highmem barrier.
>
> I can certainly ensure we sit below that barrier on the MinnowBoard. We
> can also speak with the Intel UEFI firmware development teams to see
> about making that a requirement. I don't know if we'll be successful,
> but Matt, Peter, and I have recently coaxed some changes of that nature in.
>
No, that is the wrong approach. The HIGHMEM barrier is a Linux kernel
construct and isn't even guaranteed to be the same from one boot *of the
same kernel* to another. The value 896M is merely the default, but it
can be affected by both compile time and command line options.
-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