Hi Jerry, On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:15:33 -0600, Jerry Hoemann wrote: > The incorrect "Misc Feature" bit in type 219 table was being used to > identify that the platform is capable of booting with UEFI. > > For cooresponding kernel change please see: > > commit(c42cbe41727a) > > in linux-stable.
In linux. linux-stable has backports of the commits, that's not relevant in this case. > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Hoemann <[email protected]> > --- > dmioem.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/dmioem.c b/dmioem.c > index 8a72ac9..dfd14c7 100644 > --- a/dmioem.c > +++ b/dmioem.c > @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static int dmi_decode_hp(const struct dmi_header *h) > feat = DWORD(data + 0x10); > printf("\tMisc. Features: 0x%08x\n", feat); > printf("\t\tiCRU: %s\n", feat & 0x0001 ? "Yes" : "No"); > - printf("\t\tUEFI: %s\n", feat & 0x0408 ? "Yes" : "No"); > + printf("\t\tUEFI: %s\n", feat & 0x01400 ? "Yes" : "No"); > break; > > default: What's the rationale for using a 5-digit mask instead of 4-digit? It makes both the change and the resulting code harder to read IMHO. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support _______________________________________________ https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dmidecode-devel
