[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130627143801.GB12900@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:38:01 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, matt.fleming@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: arm: [U]EFI runtime services
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:00:50AM +0200, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:32:19AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We can probably get away with that now, but it does risk us ending up
> > with some firmware that expects to run in physical mode (boards designed
> > for Linux) and some firmware that expects to run in virtual mode (boards
> > designed for Windows). The degree of lockdown in the Windows ecosystem
> > at present means it's not a real problem at the moment, but if that ever
> > changes we're going to risk incompatibility.
>
> Is there anything preventing calling SetVirtualAddressMap() with a
> 1:1 map?
No, but we've seen bugs as a result on some x86 systems. As far as the
spec, though, you're fine.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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