[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5313BD5A.1040409@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:23:06 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len.Brown@...el.com,
Adam Williamson <awilliam@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot
sequence loop
On 2014/3/3 7:11, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So, if you are still suggesting we add EFI only, please let me know your
>> plan about adding dmidecode table and if it's acceptable to add new
>> tables, I have three waiting: ASUS-T100, Dell Venue 8 Pro, and Dell
>> Venue 11 Pro.
>
> I don't think it's acceptable to add DMI entries to the reboot table. I
> think you should add the EFI call (since we expect that to work now),
> and I have no objection to adding cf9 to the end of the list if we have
> standard PCI io ports (Windows doesn't do it, but we can hardly make
> things worse).
>
Windows doesn't do because there is no 32/64 mixed windows and EFI on
the planet. Since the silicon is actually 64 bit, I failed to see a
reason to refuse the user install 64bit linux on it. So we encountered a
case windows didn't.
So, you didn't mention BOOT_BIOS, if you don't want to add BOOT_BIOS,
and you also don't like DMI entires, how do you want to deal with the
machines requiring BOOT_BIOS to reboot their machine?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
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