On 12/19/2013 08:05 PM, joeyli wrote: > > Then that means the priority of PNP0B0x is higher then "CMOS RTC Not > Present" flag. ACPI spec doesn't have clear definition on this. > According to the Microsoft requirements documents, such a platform is broken and shouldn't exist. > I look forward to Borislav's "EFI runtime mapping" to fix the physical > address accessing issue of EFI time service on x86_64 machines. I tested > his patches on a issue machine and it works for walk around BIOS bug. > > Can we use EFI time services on x86_64 after Borislav's patches accepted > to mainline? > No. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
