[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <520A83B2.4010003@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:06:26 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: default CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y
On 08/13/2013 12:02 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 11:52 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 08/13/2013 11:43 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> Can we actually boot a 32 bit kernel on an EFI64 system? The last time
>>> I tried on my Secure Boot SDV it wouldn't work; the problem is getting
>>> someting in the transfer of control path to boot the processor back to
>>> 32 bit mode.
>>
>> We can boot with a bootloader in "skip stub" mode; no runtime services
>> yet.
>
> So the bootloader has to do the 64->32 transition?
>
Currently, yes.
>> We are working on making it possible to boot via a EFI stub in
>> assisted mode (still needing a bootloader, but with the boot stub in the
>> kernel.)
>>
>> Runtime services will be the last piece, obviously, but even that looks
>> reasonably doable.
>
> So why not start with the working case (default to EFI on 64 bit) and
> add in the mostly non-working case (default to EFI on 32 bit) when it
> actually mostly works?
We can do that, but I really hate making gratuitous differences between
32 and 64 bits... we have too many of those already.
-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