Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:49:14 +0800 | From | "Li, Aubrey" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot sequence loop |
| |
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 >
| |