On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:04:44AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 15:23 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 05:51:22PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > > > > If we are circumventing the standard Linux bootloader, perhaps we should > > > communicate this to the Linux developers. > > > > This is not circumvention. We're using a 32-bit interface that's part of > > their > > boot protocol specification (i.e. they promised not to break it). The only > > caveat is that so far it's only used on EFI and on coreboot, it hasn't been > > so widespread, and therefore not so widely tested yet. > > I see. It looks like the x86_64 kernel has code for printing strings in > 16-bit mode and in 64-bit mode, but not in 32-bit mode, in which we > enter the kernel. So no easy fix, unfortunately.
It's possible to find a fix for this from Linux side, but IMHO the best long-term fix would be to make whoever installed Linux _and_ GRUB figure out what GRUB should do. Not too much to ask, since we give them the tools (cpuid command) to do it. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
