On 11/20/2018 03:02 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 11/20/2018 3:44 PM, Alex_Gagniuc@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> I'd prefer "sure" instead of "think". "I think it breaks some system I'm >> not telling you about" doesn't help much in figuring out how not to >> break said system(s).:) > > Sorry, I thought I mentioned why it would break but let me repeat. Why, yes, but bets are still being placed on the systems allegedly suffering from this. > The systems I have seen rely on the HEST table presence as an indicator > to the OS that firmware first is enabled. If you go look at the _OSC bits > on such systems, it still says OS owns the AER service. > > The assumption here is that HEST table has precedence over the _OSC bits. > That's what needs to be clarified in the UEFI forum. > > If this code is to go in and ignore the HEST table presence, then firmware > will think that it owns AER service and OS will think that it owns AER > service too. So this seems like exactly the scenario we were hypothesizing. * System boots up with FFS enabled. Everything is fine so far. * OSPM requests control of AER (set bit 3 in _OSC) * FW grants OS control of AER (set bit 3 in _OSC reply) That's how things are designed to work. Now, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the firmware on those system's is broken, and it didn't intend to give the OS control of AER. OSPM checking HEST instead of _OSC is still wrong, according to the spec. Two wrongs don't make a right, they just don't crash. I think the correct way is to identify those broken systems, and add quirks for them. Continuing to have inconsistent and over-complicated logic that is not spec compliant is not any better. Alex
