From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932758Ab2ASTOr (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:14:47 -0500 Received: from mx1.gd-ms.com ([153.11.250.40]:33455 "EHLO mx1.gd-ms.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756762Ab2ASTOo (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:14:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F18584F.7060603@zytor.com> References: <20120117195841.48fe8236@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20120119154504.710e202e@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <4F18584F.7060603@zytor.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Alan Cox , Kushal Koolwal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, michael.d.labriola@gmail.com, Ingo Molnar , Matthew Garrett , support@versalogic.com, Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, reboot: skip DMI checks if reboot set by user X-KeepSent: E1B368BB:B6249713-8525798A:00692513; type=4; name=$KeepSent Message-ID: From: Michael D Labriola Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:14:32 -0500 X-GDMEncrypt: FALSE X-GDMMarking: NOT_SENSITIVE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-GDM-EVAL: score: /30; hits: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "H. Peter Anvin" wrote on 01/19/2012 12:52:15 PM: > On 01/19/2012 09:46 AM, Michael D Labriola wrote: > > > > Random question... why do we have a reboot_init function that does DMI > > checking with reboot_dmi_table (callbacks are mostly set_bios_reboot, but > > there is a single set_kbd_reboot) and also a pci_reboot_init which does > > the DMI check again using a separate pci_reboot_dmi_table (all callbacks > > are to set_pci_reboot)? > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to do a single DMI scan using one big table? > > > > Yes, and such a patch would be appreciated. > > The reason it is as it is dates back to before the 32-64 bit > unification, as far as I know. > > (BIOS reboot is currently not supported on 64 bits, mainly.) Well, that does complicate it a bit. I'll gin something up and see what you think. I guess it will involve having an #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 block inside a single dmi_table structure for the BIOS quirks. Actually, set_kbd_reboot is inside the current X86_32 only block, along with the one DMI callback that uses it. Is this correct? --- Michael D Labriola Electric Boat mlabriol@gdeb.com 401-848-8871 (desk) 401-848-8513 (lab) 401-316-9844 (cell)