On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:51:45AM -0500, Joel Schopp wrote: > On 04/30/2013 07:52 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Joel Schopp wrote: > >>I'm working on the Linux kernel implementation of an draft standard > >>that has a uefi component. The interesting part is that the uefi > >>component isn't in the uefi runtime table, but instead has a > >>physical address stored an ACPI table. Other than not being in the > >>runtime table it behaves exactly like the other runtime services. > > > >Sigh. Is the spec final yet? Doing this in ACPI is inconvenient - ACPI > >isn't available at the stage where we do early UEFI setup, so it would > >have been much easier if this had been a UEFI table rather than an ACPI > >one. > > The spec appears to currently be in purgatory, finished but not > published. Do you happen to know offhand what spec defines the UEFI > runtime services table? That's in the UEFI spec, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put it there. Instead, you can add another UEFI table with a different UUID and have a pointer to that from the ConfigurationTables pointer in the UEFI system table. > > > >>2) Various methods to map in the physical address into virtual > >>address space and then call the virtual address. All of these have > >>failed. > > Turns out there was a bug in the UEFI implementation, I'm pretty > sure we have a way to map it in and call it now. Cool. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
