From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751714AbaCCBgH (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:36:07 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:10820 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751084AbaCCBgF (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:36:05 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,574,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="492573505" Message-ID: <5313DC82.7030802@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:36:02 +0800 From: "Li, Aubrey" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" , Matthew Garrett CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , "alan@linux.intel.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len.Brown@intel.com, Adam Williamson Subject: Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot sequence loop References: <53129256.6060704@zytor.com> <20140302022334.GA1131@srcf.ucam.org> <53130A46.1010801@linux.intel.com> <5313AD1B.6050403@linux.intel.com> <20140302222654.GA17838@srcf.ucam.org> <5313B47B.6020402@linux.intel.com> <20140302231154.GA20891@srcf.ucam.org> <5313BD5A.1040409@linux.intel.com> <20140303000759.GA25085@srcf.ucam.org> <5313CA6B.7020505@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <5313CA6B.7020505@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2014/3/3 8:18, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/02/2014 04:07 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:23:06AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> And we'll call the 32 bit EFI call, so what's the problem? No problem after Fleming's mixed mode is landed. >> >>> 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? >> >> I was planning on ignoring them. >> Well, I'm fine to ignore BOOT_BIOS because I don't have one in hand, but I'll bother you again with the same logic when I have one, heihei. Do you need me to refine the patch to remove BOOT_BIOS? > > I suspect we'll never get away from having a DMI table, if nothing else > because we can't test enough, but the current situation where it seems > like we need to add every since Dell box to the DMI table is clearly broken. > > -hpa > Agree, definitely. Thanks, -Aubrey