On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: [...] > From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:42:35 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities > > Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from > EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now > indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with > bit-native firmware, e.g. 64-bit kernel with 64-bit firmware. > > The immediate motivation for this patch is the bug report at, > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-cdimage/+bug/1040557 > > which details how running a platform driver on an EFI machine that is > designed to run under BIOS can cause the machine to become > bricked. Also, the following report, > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121 > > details how running said driver can also cause Machine Check > Exceptions. Drivers need a new means of detecting whether they're > running on an EFI machine, as sadly the expression, > > if (!efi_enabled) > > hasn't been a sufficient condition for quite some time. [...] This patch maps the old efi_enabled flag to efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT). Your second patch adds a test for efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT) to the samsung-laptop driver. So the samsung-laptop driver could be fixed by adding a check for the old flag; it doesn't depend on the addition of new flags at all. The changes elsewhere may well be important, but the cited motivation here just doesn't make sense. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy? A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
