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...@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 > -- 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/