From: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 01:53:33 +0100 > On 03/10/2014 01:41 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 01:37:32 +0100 >> >>> The mechanism is manual, no automatic way to determine it. >> >> We recognize BIOS and ACPI bugs and work around them, by looking at >> version information and whatnot, so you really can't convince me that >> something similar can't be done here perhaps in the platform code. > > Hmm, if the is a way to determine the version of that particual u-boot > I'd be happy to exploit that information. But I honestly doubt that. > Compared to u-boot bootloader and kernel interaction, BIOS and ACPI > are well-defined protocols. > > I personally, would prefer everybody should update his broken > bootloaders, but that will just not happen. What you can do is have a test that _perhaps_ covers a "broader than reality" list of broken bootloader cases. Then you have something the bootloader can provide which indicates that it has been fixed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
