From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755336AbaCCWMB (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:12:01 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:46447 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754951AbaCCWMA (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:12:00 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,580,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="465930817" Message-ID: <5314FE25.6040407@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 06:11:49 +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> <5313DC82.7030802@linux.intel.com> <51d8c7f9-656d-48ad-8b82-0e4302c4b827@email.android.com> <5313DF9A.7000204@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <5313DF9A.7000204@linux.intel.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 Do we have a conclusion here now? Thanks, -Aubrey On 2014/3/3 9:49, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2014/3/3 9:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> We are not removing BOOT_BIOS... whether or not we have it on buy default is another matter. > > Right, I meant I remove BOOT_BIOS from my second patch if needed. > > Thanks, > -Aubrey > >> >> On March 2, 2014 5:36:02 PM PST, "Li, Aubrey" wrote: >>> 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 >> >