On 08/15/16 at 01:56pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 09 Aug, at 01:25:46PM, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > Some broken firmwares have a wrongly filled version field in BGRT table. > > (See http://wiki.osdev.org/Broken_UEFI_implementations ) > > > > As we know, these firmwares can also provide correct BGRT image, although > > the table is wrong. > > > > After removing the check of the version field, the kernel can now extract > > the image correctly, and the information is also correct. > > > > Tested on a Thinkpad E531 (68854UC). > > > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icen...@aosc.xyz> > > --- > > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c | 5 ----- > > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c > > b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c > > index 6a2f569..f492ea0 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c > > @@ -47,11 +47,6 @@ void __init efi_bgrt_init(void) > > bgrt_tab->header.length, sizeof(*bgrt_tab)); > > return; > > } > > - if (bgrt_tab->version != 1) { > > - pr_notice("Ignoring BGRT: invalid version %u (expected 1)\n", > > - bgrt_tab->version); > > - return; > > - } > > if (bgrt_tab->status & 0xfe) { > > pr_notice("Ignoring BGRT: reserved status bits are non-zero > > %u\n", > > bgrt_tab->status); > > This would be less scary if we checked for known broken and known good > version values instead of removing the check altogether, i.e. 0 and 1.
Could we add some quirk for these broken hardware instead of changing the normal code? > > The whole point of the version field is that it tells us about the > layout of the BGRT table, so it's not exactly a useless check. Agreed. Thanks Dave
