On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 01:53:52PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 01:27:08PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > > > (i386_)ieee1275 implements its own grub_reboot(), so that should be > > > > > fine. (This does mean that i386_ieee1275 may currently be unable to > > > > > load the reboot module on master.) > > > > > > > > Hmmm... So, it looks that your solution is safer. Then > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > If there are no objections I will apply this in a week or so. > > > > > > In that case, I think it may be worth extending the test to > > > > > > #if !defined (GRUB_MACHINE_EFI) && !defined (GRUB_MACHINE_IEEE1275) > > > > > > I had not noticed that bit when I sent the original patch. > > > > > > But this is theorising based on looking at source code without > > > testing. > > > > Do you think about lib/ieee1275/reboot.c? It is used on PowerPC and SPARC > > only. > > So, It seems to me that we do not need "!defined (GRUB_MACHINE_IEEE1275)" > > here. > > Oh, right. > > Then I think we still have a problem with I386_IEEE1275, but am less > sure how to deal with it.
I have just build the i386-ieee1275 platform. It looks that the platform uses standard i386 reboot mechanism. So, I would put #ifndef GRUB_MACHINE_EFI like it was in original patch. Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
