On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 17:44 +, Corentin Chary wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > From: Matt Fleming
> >
> > We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
> > when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
> >
> >
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 19:37 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Acked-by: Corentin Chary
>
> This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
> either mode. As such its a regression.
>
> Do the detection check at runtime. If it was booted via EFI then don't
> grovel in places
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:07 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > There is the 'efi_enabled' variable, but it doesn't strictly mean
> > "this_is_a_uefi_system()", it actually means "Do we have EFI runtime
> > services?". The whole thing is a bit of a mess and I'm planning on
> > cleaning it up this week.
>
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 11:37 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:35:06PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > From: Matt Fleming
> >
> > We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
> > when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
> >
> >
> There is the 'efi_enabled' variable, but it doesn't strictly mean
> "this_is_a_uefi_system()", it actually means "Do we have EFI runtime
> services?". The whole thing is a bit of a mess and I'm planning on
> cleaning it up this week.
As far as I can understand it we should be reserving those
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 11:30 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> Odds are, the windows driver just isn't even loaded on the newer
> machines, as ACPI works just fine for this. But, we don't have the
> option of shipping custom systems for different laptops like Samsung
> does, so we have to probe for this
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:35:06PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> From: Matt Fleming
>
> We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
> when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121
>
> This module seems to
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 09:12:01AM +, Corentin Chary wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Acked-by: Corentin Chary
> >
> > This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
> > either mode. As such its a regression.
>
> Arg.. Sorry for that,
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Acked-by: Corentin Chary
>
> This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
> either mode. As such its a regression.
Arg.. Sorry for that, I didn't realized that CONFIG_EFI=y was not
something rare these days.
> Do
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
Acked-by: Corentin Chary corentin.ch...@gmail.com
This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
either mode. As such its a regression.
Arg.. Sorry for that, I didn't realized that CONFIG_EFI=y
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 09:12:01AM +, Corentin Chary wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
Acked-by: Corentin Chary corentin.ch...@gmail.com
This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
either mode. As such its a
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:35:06PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121
This
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 11:30 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
Odds are, the windows driver just isn't even loaded on the newer
machines, as ACPI works just fine for this. But, we don't have the
option of shipping custom systems for different laptops like Samsung
does, so we have to probe for this
There is the 'efi_enabled' variable, but it doesn't strictly mean
this_is_a_uefi_system(), it actually means Do we have EFI runtime
services?. The whole thing is a bit of a mess and I'm planning on
cleaning it up this week.
As far as I can understand it we should be reserving those areas on
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 11:37 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:35:06PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:07 +, Alan Cox wrote:
There is the 'efi_enabled' variable, but it doesn't strictly mean
this_is_a_uefi_system(), it actually means Do we have EFI runtime
services?. The whole thing is a bit of a mess and I'm planning on
cleaning it up this week.
As far as
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 19:37 +, Alan Cox wrote:
Acked-by: Corentin Chary corentin.ch...@gmail.com
This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
either mode. As such its a regression.
Do the detection check at runtime. If it was booted via EFI then don't
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 17:44 +, Corentin Chary wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 09:47 -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
> > @@ -717,7 +717,7 @@ config XO15_EBOOK
> >
> > config SAMSUNG_LAPTOP
> > tristate "Samsung Laptop driver"
> > - depends on X86
> Acked-by: Corentin Chary
This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
either mode. As such its a regression.
Do the detection check at runtime. If it was booted via EFI then don't
grovel in places you shouldn't. Indeed its possible EFI should reserve
those memory
Matt Fleming wrote:
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -717,7 +717,7 @@ config XO15_EBOOK
>
> config SAMSUNG_LAPTOP
> tristate "Samsung Laptop driver"
> - depends on X86
> + depends on X86 && !EFI
That means distros would just not get
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> From: Matt Fleming
>
> We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
> when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121
>
> This module seems to be the
From: Matt Fleming
We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121
This module seems to be the culprit as it's grovelling around in the
0xf region which has no
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121
This module seems to be the culprit as it's grovelling around in the
0xf
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
We've started getting reports of users seeing Machine Check Exceptions
when booting their Samsung laptops in UEFI mode,
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121
Matt Fleming wrote:
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
@@ -717,7 +717,7 @@ config XO15_EBOOK
config SAMSUNG_LAPTOP
tristate Samsung Laptop driver
- depends on X86
+ depends on X86 !EFI
That means distros would just not get the
Acked-by: Corentin Chary corentin.ch...@gmail.com
This is totally bogus and prevents users build a kernel which can work in
either mode. As such its a regression.
Do the detection check at runtime. If it was booted via EFI then don't
grovel in places you shouldn't. Indeed its possible EFI
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 09:47 -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Matt Fleming wrote:
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
@@ -717,7 +717,7 @@ config XO15_EBOOK
config SAMSUNG_LAPTOP
tristate Samsung Laptop driver
- depends on X86
+ depends on
28 matches
Mail list logo
