The comment header is bogus... it describes what we do, not what Windows does.
On April 4, 2014 10:34:31 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > >* Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 08:13:48AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> > On 04/04/2014 08:12 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:27:48AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: >> > > >> > >> The current situation is, >> > >> - we have one(do we know more?) preproduction machine hangs by >CF9. >> > >> - We have more than one(could be thousand known) production >machine >> > >> works by CF9. >> > > >> > > Production hardware should never require CF9. >> > > >> > >> > There are a lot of things that shouldn't be. >> >> Windows doesn't hit CF9, and production hardware is always tested >with >> Windows, so. [...] > >So why the hell does the reboot function comment claim that the >Windows reboot sequence (which is the de facto hardware standard) >uses 0xcf9: > >/* > * Windows compatible x86 hardware expects the following on reboot: > * > * 1) If the FADT has the ACPI reboot register flag set, try it > * 2) If still alive, write to the keyboard controller > * 3) If still alive, write to the ACPI reboot register again > * 4) If still alive, write to the keyboard controller again > * 5) If still alive, call the EFI runtime service to reboot > * 6) If still alive, write to the PCI IO port 0xCF9 to reboot > * 7) If still alive, inform BIOS to do a proper reboot > * > >?? > >Thanks, > > Ingo -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
