We are not removing BOOT_BIOS... whether or not we have it on buy default is another matter.
On March 2, 2014 5:36:02 PM PST, "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey...@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 -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
