Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot sequence loop

["Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>]

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" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> 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
>>
>