On 30/04/16 23:35, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Adding Colin and Ricardo) > > On Wed, 27 Apr, at 01:23:55PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> How is an end user supposed to see such a message and report it to the >> people that can fix it? They can't. So they report it in their >> distributions bug tracker and it either gets closed as "yeah, firmware >> sucks" or it sits there and rots in the hope that some day someone >> will do something. >> >> I understand where you're coming from in a pre-production, development >> environment but to be quite clear that is not the default environment >> Linux is run in most of the time. If this were a kernel warning, that >> could be fixed with a kernel patch, then maybe it would be worth it. >> It isn't though. > > If the error messages in the BGRT driver make it impossible for end > users to achieve a pretty boot experience then I agree, that is a > kernel bug. BGRT is an exception to the usual rule about complaining > loudly when we encounter firmware bugs simply because we're dealing > with UIs in this case. > > That's not to say we should give up reporting these kinds of invalid > table issues to firmware developers altogether. There are other means > of doing it, and comprising the wants of many end users for the > benefit of few firmware developers (relatively) is just not sensible. > > Colin, Ricardo, I haven't checked recently, are there ACPI BGRT > validations tests in FWTS and LUV? Josh (Triplett), BITS would seem > like a very good place to include these tests since it already has a > bunch of ACPI table checks. > fwts does have a BGRT test, although it is fairly trivial: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/hwe/fwts.git/tree/src/acpi/bgrt/bgrt.c Colin -- 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
