[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130627172817.GB16316@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:28:17 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
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 08:09:50AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 15:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > And yet it's the only mode in which the firmrware is actually tested
> > against an OS, so we don't have any real choice in the matter.
>
> Agree for x86 ... we just have to cope with the implementations we see
> in the field. However, ARM has much more scope to have the UEFI
> implementation developed collaboratively with Linux as the reference
> platform. If we can convince the ARM implementors that
> SetVirtualAddressMap is an accident waiting to happen, they might be
> more flexible.
The majority of existing ARM UEFI implementations have only ever been
used to boot Windows, so like I said, this really isn't a safe
assumption.
--
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