Hi Ard, On 28/06/18 11:25, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > I understand the desire to keep running these M400s as long as they > have some life left in them, but the reality is that they are end of > life already, and not many were manufactured to begin with. Sure, all this would really avoid is users having to specify 'disable_hest' on the cmdline. If these things are as rare as they sound, all the users are probably experts quite capable of doing this, and must have been doing this since v4.13. [...] > As for the efi.h patch: I don't object to adding code that makes the > spec revision available, but note that this is *not* a firmware build > number, and so it should not be used as such. Ah, I thought it was, from: | efi.runtime_version = efi.systab->hdr.revision; I read this like an ACPI OEM revision, which obviously its not. (its was also motivated by something I can pick out of dmesg on the bug reports) So this is the wrong thing to do. Matching BIOS build dates is clearly silly, and doesn't scale to a range. > Also, given that m400 is > EOL and unmaintained, no firmware updates are expected, and so > assuming that there will be a UEFI 2.7 based update in the future > seems rather optimistic. Not just a future release (although I am forever optimistic), but I was trying not to match older versions without evidence that they are affected. I mistakenly thought this was something approximating a firmware build version. Thanks, James -- 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
